Discussion:
Women as second class is another myth about Islam
(too old to reply)
K James
2006-03-14 01:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Women as second class is another myth about Islam
February 23, 2006


We must disentangle culture and religion when discussing the treatment of women, writes Nadia Jamal.
A READER once wrote to this newspaper claiming that "most Muslims are extreme misogynists, treating their women as
chattels and considering them as being of less value than their favourite camel".
Camel? Who is he calling a camel?

Not only was his claim nonsense, but it was highly offensive to Muslim women and the Muslim men who care about them.

Nevertheless, examples abound about why some people think that Muslim men treat women badly.

One is the well-publicised antisocial behaviour of some young men of Muslim faith. Another is that no woman had been
invited to an upcoming imams meeting, according to Aziza Abdel-Halim, of the Muslim Women's National Network.

The meeting, organised by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, is bringing together Muslim religious leaders
from around the country. One of the primary objectives is to establish a national register of imams, which will affect
women's lives as much as it does men's.

Following Abdel-Halim's criticism, the federation this week said women would be invited to next month's gathering as
delegates, but it could not say who would be on the list because no invitations had gone out yet.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, has expressed concern about Muslim attitudes to women, while the NSW Police Minister,
Carl Scully, has said that some men of Middle Eastern background hold "quite disgusting" views towards women.

All of this helps fuel the argument that Islam treats women as second-class citizens.

It is not necessarily so now, any more than 1400 years ago, when Islam gave women rights that were unprecedented
throughout the world.

Muslim women had spiritual equality, the right to an independent legal personality, the right to own property, the right
to choose their own husband and the right to seek a divorce.

In a recent speech that considered the historical position of women, a Sydney Muslim scholar, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammad,
said the prophet Muhammad's message elevated women to a position where "she was granted her natural rights as a human
being".

This message came to societies, he said, that had previously taken pride in the birth of males and felt ashamed when a
female was born. Islam changed this.

Islam teaches that mothers must be honoured and treated with kindness and respect, he continued, that Allah (or God)
will regard with favour the men who treat their wives gently and well, and that raising a daughter is one means of
earning the grace of Allah and entry to heaven.


these sentiments, however, have not translated into the lives of many Muslim women, particularly in the home. Some
Muslims are still disappointed if they do not have a son.

So who is to blame for the misconceptions about women in Islam today, and for the unsatisfactory reality? To say it is
the fault of men or the media is tempting, but simplistic. Islam is not the problem. People have made it the problem.

As a religion, Islam promotes education and has never denied women the right to learn. In fact, the first word revealed
in the Koran is iqra (or read). This message is for all Muslims, regardless of gender and age.

But cultural practices are often confused as or mistaken for religious teachings. While there is no denying that the two
are intertwined, it is only through better education that the distinction between them can be better understood.

Many of the problems facing women in the Muslim community, such as a man's role in the home, are the same as those in
other communities.

And there is aggressive male culture in many spheres. Just yesterday the High Court judge Michael Kirby said such an
environment was keeping women out of the legal profession. This is not to say that the problem should not be tackled in
communities where it exists, only that it should also be recognised as not being unique to one group or setting.

The charity group Bayt Al-Zakat, which translates as House of the Alms, recently held an awards ceremony in Sydney for
high achieving HSC students of Muslim background. Many of the high-scoring students were girls, an exciting reality for
Muslim women.

I addressed the gathering, as an Australian woman of Islamic faith, and I told the young women that by being at the
ceremony and receiving their awards, they were helping to break down some of the stereotypes.

I also called on the men in the audience to help dispel some of the misconceptions.

We need these young men's help to improve the position of women, so that women receive the respect and rights they not
only expect in a democratic society, but which their God has revealed as inherent and eternal.

Nadia Jamal is a Herald journalist.

http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/women-as-second-class-is-another-myth-about-islam/2006/02/22/1140563858120.html?page=2
Pastor Steve Winter
2006-03-14 02:29:51 UTC
Permalink
"K James" <***@nospam.com> spake thusly and wrote:

>Women as second class is another myth about Islam

See http://www.allahislam.com

Pastor Winter
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
K James
2006-03-14 20:44:55 UTC
Permalink
"Pastor Steve Winter" <steve-.NO--SPAM@-prime.org> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
> "K James" <***@nospam.com> spake thusly and wrote:
>
> >Women as second class is another myth about Islam

> See http://www.allahislam.com

You mean an anti-islamic hate site, to promot Anti-Muslim bigotry

This article from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/islam/3198285.stm

Check this web site it contains several articles written by women
http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm





> Pastor Winter
> --
> Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
> http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
> Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-14 20:08:39 UTC
Permalink
K James wrote:
> "Pastor Steve Winter" <steve-.NO--SPAM@-prime.org> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
> > "K James" <***@nospam.com> ....... wrote:
> >
> > >Women as second class is another myth about Islam
>
> > See http://www.allahislam.com
>
> You mean an anti-islamic hate site, to promot Anti-Muslim bigotry
>
> This article from the BBC
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/islam/3198285.stm
>
> Check this web site it contains several articles written by women
> http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm
>
Throughout history women had a gender-role in procreation and the
nurture of children in the family. That is still so in many countries
and for those who choose that role in this country.

In modern times a wider role for women became an issue from the early
1960's when the contraceptive pill became available, and at a time when
more labour saving electric aids were becoming available making
housework easier. It was in 1975 that The International Year for Women
gave prominence to women' s involvement in a wider sphere of society.
I can recall that early in that year the bishops of one Christian
denomination were challenged on a
TV current affairs programmes, despite the fact that most other
denominations had not given leadership roles to women.
As a comment on that issue, in a situation with a probability rating of
almost zero, I gave a talk (preached) in a suburban church, from
memory, in the early 1960's.

When I chose teaching as a career towards the end of Primary schooling
and at about the start of
World War II, I accepted that marriage would not be part of my life.
In my Public School five of the eight teachers were single women, three
of whom were middle-aged. Marriage, for a woman teacher in those years,
meant resignation because of the problems of combining the management
of the home and a career.
. But the post-war years changed that with increased migration and
behaviour problems in some children.
There was a requirement for more teachers and that was fulfilled by the
increased employment of married women.
I have been told that in one High school class, and perhaps more, of
which I am unaware, it was said previously women had dirty houses.
That was not so for many stay-at-home mothers, as I know from my
experience.

My involvement in this topic, and others, is not to promote
anti-Islamic bigotry. I know there are those of the Islamic faith who
lead very moral lives, so that what I am posting is not a denigration
of them.

My involvement has been to draw attention to the differences that exist
between Islam and Christianity and how Islam developed from
Christianity.
Is it true, as I have read, that Mohammed removed what he saw as
corruption in the Biblical scriptures?

Or is it truer that he rewrote the Biblical sciptures to present
himself as the leader, the prophet, of a religion in opposition to the
Christian faith?
>
I became involved in this issue, first through a study in worldwide
ceramics that included those of Middle Eastern countries and second,
because of an attempt I made through an Ilamic Information Officer to
encourage those of the Islamic faith here in Australia to try to do
something to prevent the Gulf War in the early 1990's.
That officer told me that Mohammed had said that Jesus had predicted
one would come after Him whose shoelaces He was unworthy to unloose. I
told that officer that those words had been spoken by John the Baptist
of Jesus Christ. That indicated a revision made by Mohammed which I can
only believe was done to give himself credibility.

The truth of a religion cannot always be deduced by the actions of some
members of it, nor in a criticism of social norms that existed at the
time when the religion came into existence and then used against it
hundreds of years later in changed circumstances.

In respect of women, it has been said that Islam is increasing in
numbers because of the large number of children that Islamic women are
required to procreate.
My own attitude on that is that as there are so many children in need
in various countries in the world that procreation should be limited. I
believe voluntarily is the better moral attitude, so those children
already born can have more resources given to them. Included in that
help is the requirement that leaders in some of those countries who are
acting corruptly should adopt more responsible attitudes.

I believe that Christianity is the true religion, In His death and
resurrection, Jesus Christ, God's Son through the Virgin birth,
provided the means for a restored relationship with God through faith
in Him. That is the 'Gospel in a nutshell' Despite the actions of some
through the centuries and today, the teachings of Jesus Christ are of
peace and right attitudes to others.
Gladys Swager
Hj Abu Hassan
2006-03-15 03:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Muslim Men have more rights than their women. They can have four wives but
their women cannot have more than one husband. Muslim women have lesser
rights than their men.
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>K James wrote:
>> "Pastor Steve Winter" <steve-.NO--SPAM@-prime.org> wrote in message
>> news:***@4ax.com...
>> > "K James" <***@nospam.com> ....... wrote:
>> >
>> > >Women as second class is another myth about Islam
>>
>> > See http://www.allahislam.com
>>
>> You mean an anti-islamic hate site, to promot Anti-Muslim bigotry
>>
>> This article from the BBC
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/islam/3198285.stm
>>
>> Check this web site it contains several articles written by women
>> http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm
>>
> Throughout history women had a gender-role in procreation and the
> nurture of children in the family. That is still so in many countries
> and for those who choose that role in this country.
>
> In modern times a wider role for women became an issue from the early
> 1960's when the contraceptive pill became available, and at a time when
> more labour saving electric aids were becoming available making
> housework easier. It was in 1975 that The International Year for Women
> gave prominence to women' s involvement in a wider sphere of society.
> I can recall that early in that year the bishops of one Christian
> denomination were challenged on a
> TV current affairs programmes, despite the fact that most other
> denominations had not given leadership roles to women.
> As a comment on that issue, in a situation with a probability rating of
> almost zero, I gave a talk (preached) in a suburban church, from
> memory, in the early 1960's.
>
> When I chose teaching as a career towards the end of Primary schooling
> and at about the start of
> World War II, I accepted that marriage would not be part of my life.
> In my Public School five of the eight teachers were single women, three
> of whom were middle-aged. Marriage, for a woman teacher in those years,
> meant resignation because of the problems of combining the management
> of the home and a career.
> . But the post-war years changed that with increased migration and
> behaviour problems in some children.
> There was a requirement for more teachers and that was fulfilled by the
> increased employment of married women.
> I have been told that in one High school class, and perhaps more, of
> which I am unaware, it was said previously women had dirty houses.
> That was not so for many stay-at-home mothers, as I know from my
> experience.
>
> My involvement in this topic, and others, is not to promote
> anti-Islamic bigotry. I know there are those of the Islamic faith who
> lead very moral lives, so that what I am posting is not a denigration
> of them.
>
> My involvement has been to draw attention to the differences that exist
> between Islam and Christianity and how Islam developed from
> Christianity.
> Is it true, as I have read, that Mohammed removed what he saw as
> corruption in the Biblical scriptures?
>
> Or is it truer that he rewrote the Biblical sciptures to present
> himself as the leader, the prophet, of a religion in opposition to the
> Christian faith?
>>
> I became involved in this issue, first through a study in worldwide
> ceramics that included those of Middle Eastern countries and second,
> because of an attempt I made through an Ilamic Information Officer to
> encourage those of the Islamic faith here in Australia to try to do
> something to prevent the Gulf War in the early 1990's.
> That officer told me that Mohammed had said that Jesus had predicted
> one would come after Him whose shoelaces He was unworthy to unloose. I
> told that officer that those words had been spoken by John the Baptist
> of Jesus Christ. That indicated a revision made by Mohammed which I can
> only believe was done to give himself credibility.
>
> The truth of a religion cannot always be deduced by the actions of some
> members of it, nor in a criticism of social norms that existed at the
> time when the religion came into existence and then used against it
> hundreds of years later in changed circumstances.
>
> In respect of women, it has been said that Islam is increasing in
> numbers because of the large number of children that Islamic women are
> required to procreate.
> My own attitude on that is that as there are so many children in need
> in various countries in the world that procreation should be limited. I
> believe voluntarily is the better moral attitude, so those children
> already born can have more resources given to them. Included in that
> help is the requirement that leaders in some of those countries who are
> acting corruptly should adopt more responsible attitudes.
>
> I believe that Christianity is the true religion, In His death and
> resurrection, Jesus Christ, God's Son through the Virgin birth,
> provided the means for a restored relationship with God through faith
> in Him. That is the 'Gospel in a nutshell' Despite the actions of some
> through the centuries and today, the teachings of Jesus Christ are of
> peace and right attitudes to others.
> Gladys Swager
>
nur abraham
2006-03-28 03:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Can you imagine if a women have two or three husband? Whose baby is in
the stomach your baby of the other husband?

I suggest that U get a better name because you do not deserve to used
Hj Abu Hassan because of your ignorent,
Touche'
2006-03-29 02:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Do a DNA test, will you?

"nur abraham" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Can you imagine if a women have two or three husband? Whose baby is in
> the stomach your baby of the other husband?
>
> I suggest that U get a better name because you do not deserve to used
> Hj Abu Hassan because of your ignorent,
>
Pastor Steve Winter
2006-03-15 15:53:00 UTC
Permalink
"K James" <***@Nospam.com> spake thusly and wrote:

>
>> See http://www.allahislam.com
>
>You mean an anti-islamic hate site, to promot Anti-Muslim bigotry

How is documenting the truth about Islamic hate and murder a
"hate" site? It is an anti-hate site.

http://www.fruitofislam.org

Pastor Winter
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
Hj Abu Hassan
2006-03-18 01:16:23 UTC
Permalink
"K James" <***@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F4SdnTiUYJiJnIrZRVn-***@sysmatrix.net...
>
> "Pastor Steve Winter" <steve-.NO--SPAM@-prime.org> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> "K James" <***@nospam.com> spake thusly and wrote:
>>
>> >Women as second class is another myth about Islam
>
Muslim women will not be second class when they attain the right to have as
many husbands as the Muslim men.
>> See http://www.allahislam.com
>
> You mean an anti-islamic hate site, to promot Anti-Muslim bigotry
>
> This article from the BBC
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/islam/3198285.stm
>
> Check this web site it contains several articles written by women
> http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>> Pastor Winter
>> --
>> Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
>> http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
>> Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
>
>
Riglin
2006-03-18 04:45:02 UTC
Permalink
"Hj Abu Hassan" <abu ***@tm.net.my> wrote in message
news:441b5f68$0$7604$***@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "K James" <***@Nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:F4SdnTiUYJiJnIrZRVn-***@sysmatrix.net...
>>
>> "Pastor Steve Winter" <steve-.NO--SPAM@-prime.org> wrote in message
>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>> "K James" <***@nospam.com> spake thusly and wrote:
>>>
>>> >Women as second class is another myth about Islam
>>
> Muslim women will not be second class when they attain the right to have
> as many husbands as the Muslim men.

If they can get that here but they'll still be second class in heaven.


>>> See http://www.allahislam.com
>>
>> You mean an anti-islamic hate site, to promot Anti-Muslim bigotry
>>
>> This article from the BBC
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/islam/3198285.stm
>>
>> Check this web site it contains several articles written by women
>> http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Pastor Winter
>>> --
>>> Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
>>> http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
>>> Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
>>
>>
>
>
nur abraham
2006-03-28 03:26:54 UTC
Permalink
"O Humankind! We have created you male and female and have divided you
into nations and tribes that you recognize each other. The best of you
in the sight of God is the one most socially aware (taqwa- literally -
"extremely careful")." Koran 49:13


The Liberated Woman:


We see some common characteristics in modern secular society concerning

what is required of men and women: Open chest shirts for the female, a
necktie for the male. Belly exposed shirts for the female, tucked-in
shirts for the male. Men's dress patronizes opaque clothing where as
feminine clothes are transparent. Modern society labels a man as
improperly dressed when not in full suit but women are celebrated if
they keep their legs uncovered, even on a cold winter night.


The society that condemns the exhibition of male physical curves and
labels them as "perversion" provides artificial "aids" to under
developed areas of the female. Everyone has heard the term, 'single
mother' but you hardly ever hear about the 'single father'. The fashion

world usually controlled by males, aims to create instability in the
female mind. She is taught that "wearing the least" is something that
builds "status" and taking it all off is "liberation". (Omar, Kamel
1989)


She is taught to hate her own body. The form of her eyelashes and
brows, the style of her walking and speech, the color of her lips,
nails and cheek are all given an artificial look. She also hates the
natural trend of her hair. In such a society, "hair fashion designers"
and cosmetic manufacturers make big money.


Whereas men balance themselves on a three-inch base heel of the shoes,
the woman is expected to balance herself on a half a centimeter heel.
This creates an abnormality called Lordosis in medical terminology.
Males make big money, displaying female nakedness through their
respectible trades like cabarets, strip bars, fashion shows, and
especially commercial advertising (Do I want the Mustang or the sexy
blonde in the advertisement?), nude paintings, magazines and now
Internet web pages.


Modern urban culture does not only show the above but it also shows:
Alarming statistics with manifold percentage increase, compared to past

decades, of single parents, children with no fathers, broken families,
sex crimes, divorce, suicide and drug use among teens, asylums for
unclaimed children, homes for unwanted parents, clinics for delinquent
youth and neurotic adults.


Recent estimates suggest that up to 80% of US society displays some
form of psychological symptoms, and that up to 22% have psychological
problems serious enough to interfere with their day to day living which

are diagnosable (Chicago Tribune 12/1999).


Data in the United States also shows that 25 to 35 percent of girls are

sexually abused, usually by men well known to them (Kilbourne
1999:253). A high percentage of women so assaulted suffer from Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (the same disorder that a large number of
Vietnam veterans suffer from) which leads to addiction and substance
abuse and eventually to poverty and homelessness. Thus women in America

live in a "war zone" in their own homes. If they survive childhood,
their boyfriends or husbands eventually get them!


In such societies "liberation" of women has been reduced to a slogan to

sell products. Such sellers of "liberation", mostly men, offer women
"liberation" via smoking, alcohol, food and their natural longing for
stable relationships [which have dwindled in such a society]. This
commercial "liberation" comes at a great cost to women and serves to
isolate them through addiction. As addicts make great consumers, the
sellers of such "liberation" want to keep it that way (Kilbourne 1999).



When such sellers of "liberation" are faced with genuine demands for
gender equality, like the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment in the United
States], they reject them outright and a government funded and
controlled by them makes it fail [ERA failed to pass in 1982]. Such
powers that be in these societies not only attack any genuine efforts
towards liberation of women in their own society [as they are
commercially disadvantageous to them], but also attack all other ideas
presented as truly liberating to women, by other societies [to which
they export their commercial culture] by labeling them, "harsh,
barbaric, primitive". They do this through their control of the media,
which in most cases is not only owned by them but depends on them,
through their advertising dollars, for its very survival .


This paper is an attempt to reassess the History of Women's Rights,
taking note of things that have been widely ignored in popular
presentation of the subject. The paper also serves to clarify the
position of a book, the Koran that has been distorted and
misrepresented through the ages, by those having vested interests.


WOMEN IN WESTERN RELIGION:


Christianity, the major religion that shaped western thought, presents
women as subordinate to men. Men according to the Bible are the owners
of women, just like an animal is owned. Exodus 20:17 which states the
famous tenth commandment, lumps a wife together with his servants,
animals and house. A man could sell his daughter as a slave (Exodus
21:7-11) or give her in marriage to whomsoever he chose.


This subordination of women to men in the Bible, which shaped western
thought on the issue, is made clear in Leviticus 12:1-8: After the
birth of a male child, a woman is ritually impure for seven days,
however after the birth of a female child she is ritually impure for
fourteen days according to the law of the Bible.


1 Corinthians 14:34-35 of the New Testament of the Bible states:


"As in all Churches of the saints, the woman should be subordinate as
even the law says...for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."



1 Timothy 2:11 states:


"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no
woman to teach or have authority over men. She is to keep silent, for
Adam was formed first then Eve, and Adam was not deceived but the woman

was deceived and became a transgressor."
1 Corinthians 11:6 says:


" For if a woman will not veil herself then she should cut off her
hair, but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let
her wear a veil...for man was not created from woman but woman from
man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man."
Jesus' track record, based on the New Testament isn't much better in
his treatment of women, even his own mother. According to the Gospel of

John, he is openly rude to his mother. Having become famous among the
people, according to John or whoever wrote the Gospel of John, he
addresses his mother in this rude manner:


"Woman! What have I to do with you. My time is not yet (John 2:4)."


Imagine, if you're a woman and your son or daughter said, "Woman! What
have I to do with you" [and to top it off, it was said in public and
not private], how you would feel? Considering a mother's sacrifice and
discomfort in bearing and delivering a child, such behavior is
unacceptable. Hardly an exemplary character that Christian evangelists
depict the "Prince of peace" had. The Koran states:


"Be careful of God and be careful of the wombs that bore you (Koran
4:1).


"We have enjoined on humankind, kindness to their parents. In
discomfort did his/her mother bear them and in discomfort did she give
them birth (Koran 46:15)"


The Koran disputes the authenticity of the Gospels as being a genuine
account of the words of Jesus, as does the Jesus Seminar, based on
modern findings. Contrary to what the Gospels present Jesus as saying
to his mother, the Koran quotes him as saying:


"And God has made me [Jesus] kind and dutiful towards my mother and not

arrogant or overbearing (Koran 19:32)."


Helen Ellerbe, in her book, The Dark Side of Christian History (1995)
elaborates on the Church's[both Catholic and Protestant] treatment of
women:


The second century St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Every woman should

be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman." The Church
father Tertullian explained why women deserve their status as despised
and inferior human beings:
You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of the tree: you are
the first deserter of the divine law. You destroyed so easily God's
image, man. On account of your desert-that is, death- even the Son of
God had to die [Joan Smith, Misogynies: Reflections on Myths and Malice

(N.Y Fawcett Columbine, 1989:66)].


Others expressed the view more bluntly. The sixth century Christian
philosopher, Boethius, wrote in The Consolation of Philosophy, "Woman
is a temple built upon a sewer." Bishops in the sixth century council
of Macon voted as to whether women had souls. In the tenth century, Odo

of Cluny declared, " To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of
manure."The thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas suggested that God
had made a mistake in creating woman: "Nothing deficient [or defective]

should have been produced in the first establishment of things; so
women ought not to have been produced then." And Lutherans at
Wittenberg debated whether women were really human beings at all.
Orthodox Christians held women responsible for all sin. As the [Roman
Catholic] Bible Apocrypha states, "Of woman came the beginning of sin/
And thanks to her we all must die (Ecclesiasticus 25:13-26)." As 1
Corinthians 7:1 states, "It is a good thing for man to have nothing to
do with a woman."


The 1500s marked the beginning of "witchcraft persecutions." By the
1700s over 100,000 people, 80-90 percent of them women, had been put to

death in Europe usually by burning at the stake (Chicago Tribune Dec
29, 1999- A profile of women's history). This amounted to be a
self-fulfilling prophecy as the religious King James I estimated that
the ratio of women to men who "succumbed" to witchcraft was twenty to
one (Ellerby 1995:116).


Witch persecution has its roots in the Bible as well:


"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. ...
Spot On!
2006-03-14 04:03:43 UTC
Permalink
K James wrote:
> Women as second class is another myth about Islam
> February 23, 2006
>
>
> We must disentangle culture and religion when discussing the treatment of women, writes Nadia Jamal.


What a bunch of spin - you can't separate religion and society in
middle eastern culture - they are one! You can't say the Mullah's treat
women with equality nor does the cultural laws. Get real.
CW




> A READER once wrote to this newspaper claiming that "most Muslims are extreme misogynists, treating their women as
> chattels and considering them as being of less value than their favourite camel".
> Camel? Who is he calling a camel?
>
> Not only was his claim nonsense, but it was highly offensive to Muslim women and the Muslim men who care about them.
>
> Nevertheless, examples abound about why some people think that Muslim men treat women badly.
>
> One is the well-publicised antisocial behaviour of some young men of Muslim faith. Another is that no woman had been
> invited to an upcoming imams meeting, according to Aziza Abdel-Halim, of the Muslim Women's National Network.
>
> The meeting, organised by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, is bringing together Muslim religious leaders
> from around the country. One of the primary objectives is to establish a national register of imams, which will affect
> women's lives as much as it does men's.
>
> Following Abdel-Halim's criticism, the federation this week said women would be invited to next month's gathering as
> delegates, but it could not say who would be on the list because no invitations had gone out yet.
>
> The Prime Minister, John Howard, has expressed concern about Muslim attitudes to women, while the NSW Police Minister,
> Carl Scully, has said that some men of Middle Eastern background hold "quite disgusting" views towards women.
>
> All of this helps fuel the argument that Islam treats women as second-class citizens.
>
> It is not necessarily so now, any more than 1400 years ago, when Islam gave women rights that were unprecedented
> throughout the world.
>
> Muslim women had spiritual equality, the right to an independent legal personality, the right to own property, the right
> to choose their own husband and the right to seek a divorce.
>
> In a recent speech that considered the historical position of women, a Sydney Muslim scholar, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammad,
> said the prophet Muhammad's message elevated women to a position where "she was granted her natural rights as a human
> being".
>
> This message came to societies, he said, that had previously taken pride in the birth of males and felt ashamed when a
> female was born. Islam changed this.
>
> Islam teaches that mothers must be honoured and treated with kindness and respect, he continued, that Allah (or God)
> will regard with favour the men who treat their wives gently and well, and that raising a daughter is one means of
> earning the grace of Allah and entry to heaven.
>
>
> these sentiments, however, have not translated into the lives of many Muslim women, particularly in the home. Some
> Muslims are still disappointed if they do not have a son.
>
> So who is to blame for the misconceptions about women in Islam today, and for the unsatisfactory reality? To say it is
> the fault of men or the media is tempting, but simplistic. Islam is not the problem. People have made it the problem.
>
> As a religion, Islam promotes education and has never denied women the right to learn. In fact, the first word revealed
> in the Koran is iqra (or read). This message is for all Muslims, regardless of gender and age.
>
> But cultural practices are often confused as or mistaken for religious teachings. While there is no denying that the two
> are intertwined, it is only through better education that the distinction between them can be better understood.
>
> Many of the problems facing women in the Muslim community, such as a man's role in the home, are the same as those in
> other communities.
>
> And there is aggressive male culture in many spheres. Just yesterday the High Court judge Michael Kirby said such an
> environment was keeping women out of the legal profession. This is not to say that the problem should not be tackled in
> communities where it exists, only that it should also be recognised as not being unique to one group or setting.
>
> The charity group Bayt Al-Zakat, which translates as House of the Alms, recently held an awards ceremony in Sydney for
> high achieving HSC students of Muslim background. Many of the high-scoring students were girls, an exciting reality for
> Muslim women.
>
> I addressed the gathering, as an Australian woman of Islamic faith, and I told the young women that by being at the
> ceremony and receiving their awards, they were helping to break down some of the stereotypes.
>
> I also called on the men in the audience to help dispel some of the misconceptions.
>
> We need these young men's help to improve the position of women, so that women receive the respect and rights they not
> only expect in a democratic society, but which their God has revealed as inherent and eternal.
>
> Nadia Jamal is a Herald journalist.
>
> http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/women-as-second-class-is-another-myth-about-islam/2006/02/22/1140563858120.html?page=2
KANGAROOISTAN
2006-03-14 06:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Spot On! wrote:
> K James wrote:
> > Women as second class is another myth about Islam
> > February 23, 2006
> >
> >
> > We must disentangle culture and religion when discussing the treatment of women, writes Nadia Jamal.
>
>
> What a bunch of spin - you can't separate religion and society in
> middle eastern culture - they are one! You can't say the Mullah's treat
> women with equality nor does the cultural laws. Get real.
> CW
>
>
>
>
> > A READER once wrote to this newspaper claiming that "most Muslims are extreme misogynists, treating their women as
> > chattels and considering them as being of less value than their favourite camel".
> > Camel? Who is he calling a camel?
> >
> > Not only was his claim nonsense, but it was highly offensive to Muslim women and the Muslim men who care about them.
> >
> > Nevertheless, examples abound about why some people think that Muslim men treat women badly.
> >
> > One is the well-publicised antisocial behaviour of some young men of Muslim faith. Another is that no woman had been
> > invited to an upcoming imams meeting, according to Aziza Abdel-Halim, of the Muslim Women's National Network.
> >
> > The meeting, organised by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, is bringing together Muslim religious leaders
> > from around the country. One of the primary objectives is to establish a national register of imams, which will affect
> > women's lives as much as it does men's.
> >
> > Following Abdel-Halim's criticism, the federation this week said women would be invited to next month's gathering as
> > delegates, but it could not say who would be on the list because no invitations had gone out yet.
> >
> > The Prime Minister, John Howard, has expressed concern about Muslim attitudes to women, while the NSW Police Minister,
> > Carl Scully, has said that some men of Middle Eastern background hold "quite disgusting" views towards women.
> >
> > All of this helps fuel the argument that Islam treats women as second-class citizens.
> >
> > It is not necessarily so now, any more than 1400 years ago, when Islam gave women rights that were unprecedented
> > throughout the world.
> >
> > Muslim women had spiritual equality, the right to an independent legal personality, the right to own property, the right
> > to choose their own husband and the right to seek a divorce.
> >
> > In a recent speech that considered the historical position of women, a Sydney Muslim scholar, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammad,
> > said the prophet Muhammad's message elevated women to a position where "she was granted her natural rights as a human
> > being".
> >
> > This message came to societies, he said, that had previously taken pride in the birth of males and felt ashamed when a
> > female was born. Islam changed this.
> >
> > Islam teaches that mothers must be honoured and treated with kindness and respect, he continued, that Allah (or God)
> > will regard with favour the men who treat their wives gently and well, and that raising a daughter is one means of
> > earning the grace of Allah and entry to heaven.
> >
> >
> > these sentiments, however, have not translated into the lives of many Muslim women, particularly in the home. Some
> > Muslims are still disappointed if they do not have a son.
> >
> > So who is to blame for the misconceptions about women in Islam today, and for the unsatisfactory reality? To say it is
> > the fault of men or the media is tempting, but simplistic. Islam is not the problem. People have made it the problem.
> >
> > As a religion, Islam promotes education and has never denied women the right to learn. In fact, the first word revealed
> > in the Koran is iqra (or read). This message is for all Muslims, regardless of gender and age.
> >
> > But cultural practices are often confused as or mistaken for religious teachings. While there is no denying that the two
> > are intertwined, it is only through better education that the distinction between them can be better understood.
> >
> > Many of the problems facing women in the Muslim community, such as a man's role in the home, are the same as those in
> > other communities.
> >
> > And there is aggressive male culture in many spheres. Just yesterday the High Court judge Michael Kirby said such an
> > environment was keeping women out of the legal profession. This is not to say that the problem should not be tackled in
> > communities where it exists, only that it should also be recognised as not being unique to one group or setting.
> >
> > The charity group Bayt Al-Zakat, which translates as House of the Alms, recently held an awards ceremony in Sydney for
> > high achieving HSC students of Muslim background. Many of the high-scoring students were girls, an exciting reality for
> > Muslim women.
> >
> > I addressed the gathering, as an Australian woman of Islamic faith, and I told the young women that by being at the
> > ceremony and receiving their awards, they were helping to break down some of the stereotypes.
> >
> > I also called on the men in the audience to help dispel some of the misconceptions.
> >
> > We need these young men's help to improve the position of women, so that women receive the respect and rights they not
> > only expect in a democratic society, but which their God has revealed as inherent and eternal.
> >
> > Nadia Jamal is a Herald journalist.
> >
> > http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/women-as-second-class-is-another-myth-about-islam/2006/02/22/1140563858120.html?page=2

NADIA JAMAL IS A HERALD SUN JOURNALIST

AND " AN Australian woman of the Islamic faith "

AND SHE KNOWS MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC THAN YOU

YET YOU STILL REFUSE TO LISTEN AS TOU HAVE CLOSED MINDS

THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE RIGHT , IN MY OPINION

YOU REFUSE TO BE INFORMED

ITS NO WONDER YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT SO MANY THINGS
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-14 08:59:19 UTC
Permalink
KANGAROOISTAN wrote:
>
<snip>.
> > >
> > > Nadia Jamal is a Herald journalist.
> > >
> > > http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/women-as-second-class-is-another-myth-about-islam/2006/02/22/1140563858120.html?page=2
>
> NADIA JAMAL IS A HERALD SUN JOURNALIST AND " AN Australian woman of the Islamic faith "
>
<snip>

> IN MY OPINION YOU REFUSE TO BE INFORMED. <snip>

The most important issue is, not about how women and education are
viewed in the Islamic faith.

It is whether Islam is a truer faith than Christianity. My answer is,
"It is not the true faith."

What other person was in the cave as a witness when Mohammed saw the
angel Gabriel?
What was the visual apparition that he said he saw?
Was he in a state of an epileptic fit as he had suffered from epilepsy
in his lifetime?

Was he seeking an elevated position for himself in the way that Jesus
Christ was worshipped by those who believed in Him?

His message in Mecca was one of peace - which had a parallel to the
message of Jesus Christ.
But when the Meccans would not accept him as a prophet he went to
Medina.
There he was accepted, but he raised a small army and attacked Mecca.

So fairly early the religion he taught was one of violence.

Islam and Peace
http://answeringislam.org.uk/Hoaxes/salamislam.html

Islamic clerics are on a crusade to convert courtries to Islam. I would
suggest that a thorough reading of the basic teachings of the Christian
faith (as given in the New Testament scriptures) should be done by
them.

Secondly - they should read Internet websites in which Jesus Christ and
Mohammed are compared
and also sites in which Koranic teachings and the corresponding
Christian teachings are compared.
Gladys Swager
jane abraham
2006-03-15 04:55:09 UTC
Permalink
***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> KANGAROOISTAN wrote:
> >
> <snip>.
> > > >
> > > > Nadia Jamal is a Herald journalist.
> > > >
> > > > http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/women-as-second-class-is-another-myth-about-islam/2006/02/22/1140563858120.html?page=2
> >
> > NADIA JAMAL IS A HERALD SUN JOURNALIST AND " AN Australian woman of the Islamic faith "
> >
> <snip>
>
> > IN MY OPINION YOU REFUSE TO BE INFORMED. <snip>
>
> The most important issue is, not about how women and education are
> viewed in the Islamic faith.
>
> It is whether Islam is a truer faith than Christianity. My answer is,
> "It is not the true faith."
But almost 2 Billion people around the world said it is a true faith
>
> What other person was in the cave as a witness when Mohammed saw the
> angel Gabriel?
> What was the visual apparition that he said he saw?
> Was he in a state of an epileptic fit as he had suffered from epilepsy
> in his lifetime?

Muhammd (PBUH) met angel Gabriel hundreds of time. Not just in the
cave. He even consulted a Christian Scholar during his time after the
first occation. All the wording in the Koran are from Allah thru angle
Gabriel. I recommend you to read a very good book about Muhammad by
Karen Armstrong
>
> Was he seeking an elevated position for himself in the way that Jesus
> Christ was worshipped by those who believed in Him?
Not at all. The Muslim never worship Muhammd (PBUH) but they worship
Allah, the same God the Jesus, Abraham
Adam and all the Prophets sent to the Jews for them to follow and
worship.
>
> His message in Mecca was one of peace - which had a parallel to the
> message of Jesus Christ.
You are right, Muhammd (PBUH) carry the same massage as Jesus
Christ.believe in one God. But please take not that the bible is not
just the saying of Jesus but also the story from Paul, Luke, etc. It is
Paul (Saul) a jewish murderer who propogated the trinity and Jesus the
Son of God.

> But when the Meccans would not accept him as a prophet he went to
> Medina.
> There he was accepted, but he raised a small army and attacked Mecca.

You are right and you already know about Muhammad(PBUH) but it is a
long stroy before
Mecca was attacked by Muhammad(PBUH). But he didnot attacked Mecca like
the American attack Iraq or Afganistan or Vietnam bombing everyone
including the Children. When Muhammad(PBUH). attack Mecca he didi not
killed everyone.

"It is greatly to his (Muhammad's) praise that on his occasion
(conquest of Mecca), when he presentment for ill usage of past might
naturally have incited him to revenge, he restrained his army from
shedding of blood, and showed every sign of humanity and thanks giving
to Allah for His Goodness......Ten or twelve men who had on the former
occasion shown a barbarous spirit were prescribed, and of them four
were put to death, but this must be consider exceedingly humane, in the

comparison with the other conquerors: for example with the cruelty of
the crusaders who in 1099 put seventy thousand Muslims men, women and
helpless children to death when Jerusalem fell into their hands; or
with that of British Army also fighting under the "cross" which in
the year of Grace in 1874 burned the African capital in the war on te
Old Coast.

Muhammad's victory was in very truth one of religion and
not politics; he rejected every token of personal homage and declined
all regal authority, and when the haughty chiefs of Qoreishites
appeared before him he asked:
" What can you expect at my hands?"
" Mercy, O generous brother!"
"Be it so: You are free!" He exclaimed"

Source: The Sacarens
Author: Arthur Gilman
Pulisher: London 1887 pp 184-86


>
> So fairly early the religion he taught was one of violence.
No, Mercy, O generous brother
> >
> Islamic clerics are on a crusade to convert courtries to Islam. I would
> suggest that a thorough reading of the basic teachings of the Christian
> faith (as given in the New Testament scriptures) should be done by
> them.
it is not the Islamic clerics who lunched the Crusade but Bush the
Murderer after taking to his God?
>
> Secondly - they should read Internet websites in which Jesus Christ and
> Mohammed are compared
> and also sites in which Koranic teachings and the corresponding
> Christian teachings are compared.

Thank you. It is a vey good suggestion
> Gladys Swager
jane abraham
2006-03-16 06:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Gladys Swager wrote:
>they should read Internet websites in which Jesus Christ and
>Mohammed are compared
>and also sites in which Koranic teachings and the corresponding
>Christian teachings are compared.

May be this will help...


History dispels the lies about Islam
by Mohamed Elmasry
(Monday March 13 2006)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----



"...Muslims do not blame Judaism itself for injustices committed by
Jews
against Palestinians. Nor do they blame Christianity per se for the
crimes
committed by Church-sanctioned medieval Crusades; for atrocities
committed
during the conquest of Spain by Christian armies and the subsequent
persecution and expulsion of Muslims; nor for the horrors of the
Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, or any number of
similar
tragedies."


---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-----



A well known technique in any propaganda war is the spreading of
"disinformation" about your enemy. Disinformation is the new postmodern

word for lies.


If you repeat the same lies over and over again, listeners' critical
thinking skills are numbed; and in the absence of any opposing
argument,
the lies eventually cannot be differentiated from truth.


Islam has had many enemies over the centuries and still has. One of the

most persistent lies repeated by its detractors is that Muslims spread
their faith by the sword.


Yet of all mainstream religions, none is more precisely documented as
to
its origin, revelation, message and teachings. Since its emergence
through
the Prophet Muhammad and his transmission of its holy book, the history
of
Islam has been well recorded. From the Prophet's time until today, the
Qur'an has offered guidance and discipline for everyday life. As Islam
spread, the lives and teachings of its messengers have also been
documented.


As with Judaism and Christianity, the most influential and revered
figures
are those from the time when the faith was newly revealed; in Islam,
these
were Muslims who lived in the age of Prophet Muhammad and who embodied
the
teachings of the Qur'an as examples to their fellow human beings. Many
of
their thoughts and deeds were recorded for the benefit of future
generations.


To return to the questions of whether the Qur'an encourages Muslims
to
spread their faith by force, or whether the Prophet himself set a
violent
example for Muslims to follow, one has only to consult the source.


The Qur'an is crystal clear in stating, "There is no compulsion in
religion." The commandment is absolute; there are no exceptions.
Coercion,
compulsion, force -- whatever one chooses to call it -- is totally
forbidden. No other holy book lays down such a clear directive to its
adherents.


Believers in the world's largest Muslim country of today, Indonesia,
have
never in history encountered foreign Muslim soldiers on their soil. The

same is true for today's Muslims in Malaysia, China, sub-Saharan
Africa,
the Americas, Europe, and Turkey. All of these countries or regions
were
introduced to Islam through other Muslims, not by Muslim armies.


Even in Egypt where the earliest Muslims were mostly Arab soldiers,
Islam
was diffused slowly throughout the country over more than 400 years.
The
Egyptians loved Islam because the values it embraced, such as justice,
equality, modernity and freedom.


And in Egypt, as well as in Persia, Greater Syria, India, North Africa
and
Spain, converts freely accepted Islam because it offered comparatively
more
than other religions of the day.


During those early centuries, people who felt oppressed or restricted
by
the rigidity of Christian and Jewish traditions, or excluded from the
caste
system of Hinduism, were attracted by the Islam's de-emphasis on
hierarchy.
They loved the Islamic teachings that God is One and the Lord of All,
that
humans can talk to God directly, and that there is no Original Sin -
every
human being is wholly accountable for his / her deeds.


So while it is true that Islam spread in some places with the speed of
a
bullet, no literal bullets have been involved. The whole concept of
"convert or die" is utterly foreign and reprehensible to authentic
Islamic
beliefs and conduct. And the Qur'an itself further reinforces the
sanctity
of all human lives in saying that to kill another person is as evil as
killing the entire human race.


Muslims do not blame any religion for the atrocities committed those
claiming to be its adherents.


Thus, Muslims do not blame Judaism itself for injustices committed by
Jews
against Palestinians. Nor do they blame Christianity per se for the
crimes
committed by Church-sanctioned medieval Crusades; for atrocities
committed
during the conquest of Spain by Christian armies and the subsequent
persecution and expulsion of Muslims; nor for the horrors of the
Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, or any number of
similar
tragedies. All three faiths, rooted in Abrahamic tradition, teach
similar
values of non-violence, justice and equality. Those who take up the
"cause"
of any faith through violent means are in effect blasphemers of it.


The earliest Muslims in Arabia were persecuted and subjected to
torture.
They fled for their lives from Mecca to Medina, but their pagan enemies

followed, determined to annihilate them. Then and only then, did
Muslims
take up arms in self-defence. This was no a religious war, however, but

rather a forced political conflict in which the rich and powerful of
6th-century AD Arabia perceived their status being challenged. The
Muslims'
aim was not to convert their pagan countrymen, but to defend
themselves;
similarly, the anti-Muslim pagans were not interested in suppressing
Islam
itself, but in subjugating its believers through political power.


When the Prophet Muhammad and his followers returned peacefully to
Mecca in
triumph, he granted pardon to the same people who had persecuted and
waged
war against him and his fellow Muslims.


This humane and generous behavior reflected the teaching of many
Qur'anic
verses which stress the importance of courtesy, politeness and
civility,
even where there has been severe conflict: "And the true servants of
the
God of Mercy are those who walk upon the earth humbly; and when the
ignorant address them, reply 'Peace'; and they pass the night
praying to
their Lord, prostrating and standing." (25:63 - 64)


Source:


by courtesy & © 2006 Mohamed Elmasry


http://usa.mediamonitors.net/
Theo Bekkers
2006-03-16 07:19:53 UTC
Permalink
***@ozemail.com.au wrote:

> It is whether Islam is a truer faith than Christianity. My answer is,
> "It is not the true faith."

Gladys, the true faith is whatever any individual chooses to believe in.
Have you ever met anyone who didn't believe that their faith was the true
faith?

Theo
* irenic *
2006-03-16 07:27:16 UTC
Permalink
"Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:44191281$***@news.bekkers.com.au...
> ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>> It is whether Islam is a truer faith than Christianity. My answer is,
>> "It is not the true faith."
>
> Gladys, the true faith is whatever any individual chooses to believe in.
> Have you ever met anyone who didn't believe that their faith was the true
> faith?
>
> Theo


Yes, often... they were in their 'faith' (depends how you define that) for
reasons other than personal choice/freedom amongst other dysfunctional
causes...

--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher http://jmm.aaa.net.au/

'We are not human beings having a spiritual experience;
we are spiritual beings having a human experience.'
- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man
Theo Bekkers
2006-03-16 07:38:18 UTC
Permalink
* irenic * wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> wrote

>> Gladys, the true faith is whatever any individual chooses to believe
>> in. Have you ever met anyone who didn't believe that their faith was
>> the true faith?

> Yes, often... they were in their 'faith' (depends how you define
> that) for reasons other than personal choice/freedom amongst other
> dysfunctional causes...

Oxymoron alert Rowland. If you don't believe in your faith, you don't have
faith. :-)

Theo
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-17 01:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> * irenic * wrote:
> > "Theo Bekkers" <***@bekkers.com.au> wrote
>
> >> Gladys, the true faith is whatever any individual chooses to believe
> >> in. Have you ever met anyone who didn't believe that their faith was
> >> the true faith?
>
Throughout history, and even today, people had/ have faith -
ideological - 'convictions'
* because their parents had those convictions
* a friend they admired had those convictions
* because the faith was the dominant one within their country
* because they would be massacred/ killed if they accepted another
faith position
* because the rituals appealed to them.......and others, I would think.

<snip>

What is of importance is that today there is the opportunity for
reading, and carefully thinking through the issues involved, through
available books, and other resources, especially the Internet.

As yet, through these newsgroups, I have not been given valid reasons
for abandoning the Christian faith as I think of it terms of the basic
concepts as given by Jesus Christ.
It is my desire that Christians of all the denominations that have
arisen would come to an agreement on those basic concepts. That means
thinking through why different interpretations have been given in past
centuries.

As this topic is 'Islam - not true faith' it is also important for
those who have grown up in countries where Islam has to be accepted by
their citizens for their clerics to read and carefully compare the
Koran with Biblical scriptures.
The question for them is:- Did Mohammed reconstruct the
Jewish-Christian scriptures to enable him to be the prophet - the
originator - of a new faith?
Gladys Swager
>
> Oxymoron alert Rowland. If you don't believe in your faith, you don't have
> faith. :-)
>
> Theo
Theo Bekkers
2006-03-17 12:00:15 UTC
Permalink
***@ozemail.com.au wrote:

> Throughout history, and even today, people had/ have faith -
> ideological - 'convictions'
> * because their parents had those convictions
> * a friend they admired had those convictions
> * because the faith was the dominant one within their country
> * because they would be massacred/ killed if they accepted another
> faith position
> * because the rituals appealed to them.......and others, I would
> think.

In other words, they did not have true faith.

> What is of importance is that today there is the opportunity for
> reading, and carefully thinking through the issues involved, through
> available books, and other resources, especially the Internet.

Maybe you should try that Gladys.

> As this topic is 'Islam - not true faith' it is also important for
> those who have grown up in countries where Islam has to be accepted by
> their citizens for their clerics to read and carefully compare the
> Koran with Biblical scriptures.
> The question for them is:- Did Mohammed reconstruct the
> Jewish-Christian scriptures to enable him to be the prophet - the
> originator - of a new faith?

Did Paul when he created Christianity from Judaism?

I bought a copy of the Koran this week.

Theo
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-20 09:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > Throughout history, and even today, people had/ have faith -
> > ideological - 'convictions'
> > * because their parents had those convictions
> > * a friend they admired had those convictions
> > * because the faith was the dominant one within their country
> > * because they would be massacred/ killed if they accepted another
> > faith position
> > * because the rituals appealed to them.......and others, I would
> > think.
>
> In other words, they did not have true faith.
>
It would be more correct to say that 'they' believed that they had
*true faith* whatever others might have believed of them. .

> > What is of importance is that today there is the opportunity for
> > reading, and carefully thinking through the issues involved, through
> > available books, and other resources, especially the Internet.
>
> Maybe you should try that, Gladys.
>
Theo, maybe you think that I am not reading according to your
assessment of the *right* books, etc. .

> > As this topic is 'Islam - not true faith' it is also important for
> > those who have grown up in countries where Islam has to be accepted by
> > their citizens for their clerics to read and carefully compare the
> > Koran with Biblical scriptures.

> > The question for them is:- Did Mohammed reconstruct the
> > Jewish-Christian scriptures to enable him to be the prophet - the
> > originator - of a new faith?
>
> Did Paul when he created Christianity from Judaism?
>
Paul did not create Christianity from Judaism. He was chosen by Christ
to take the Christian gospel to the Gentiles. A Hebrew and a Roman
citizen, he was born in Tarsus, on the North-Eastern corner of the
Mediterranean Sea. He was well prepared for the most important work of
his life.

> I bought a copy of the Koran this week.
>
The Koran has about 75% of Old Testament quotes and about 7% of New
Testament quotes.
I would suggest that as you read the Koran, you read the relevant
passages in the Bible.
In addition, you would find an Internet search on a comparison of Jesus
Christ and Mohammed very enlightening.

The Muslim Jesus versus The Biblical Jesus.
Twenty Scriptural Reasons Why They Are Not the Same Jesus.

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/Islam/sundquist.htm
Gladys Swager
Theo Bekkers
2006-03-21 01:17:28 UTC
Permalink
***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> In other words, they did not have true faith.

> It would be more correct to say that 'they' believed that they had
> *true faith* whatever others might have believed of them. .

Hehe. You actually understood what I was saying then. Alas, I suspect not.

>> Maybe you should try that, Gladys.

> Theo, maybe you think that I am not reading according to your
> assessment of the *right* books, etc. .

No, not at all. I think you should try reading with your eyes open.

>> Did Paul when he created Christianity from Judaism?

> Paul did not create Christianity from Judaism. He was chosen by Christ
> to take the Christian gospel to the Gentiles.

They never met. If Christianity did not follow from, as a deviation,
Judaism, what is the need of the old testament?

>> I bought a copy of the Koran this week.

> The Koran has about 75% of Old Testament quotes and about 7% of New
> Testament quotes.

You've read the Koran?

Theo
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-21 21:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:

<snip>

(Jesus and Paul) never met.

You are arguing from silence in other historical records, both of the
Jews and of the Romans. But would either of them have written about
Paul?
The Jewish authorities who had not accepted the work of Jesus were not
likely to record Paul who had trained under them and then defected
from their cause after his vision of Jesus Christ on the road to
Damascus. Understandably the only record of him is only in the New
Testament.

But prior to that he had been present at the stoning of Stephen
When Stephen said that he had seen the heaven open and the Son of Man (
Jesus Christ) standing at the right hand of God they 'covered their
ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him,
dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the
witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of Saul. .....Stephen prayed,
"Lord Jesus, receive my spirit"...."Lord, do not hold this sin against
them."
Acts 7 : 55 - 58.
(His prayer reminds us of the prayer Jesus prayed on the cross,
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.")

The Saul in the above account later used the Latin equivalent 'Paul'.

After ter his conversion he was the one who took Christ's teachings
from Jerusalem to Rome where, later in his life he was killed for his
witness. In his letters which have been preserved in the New Testament
I can't see that he wrote a new gospel. I don't see that he wrote
anything to contradict the teachings of Jesus.

If Christianity did not follow from, as a deviation,
> Judaism, what is the need of the Old Testament?
>
Jesus said that He had not come to destroy the law, as given in what
came to be called the Old Testament. Jesus said that He had come to
fulfil it.
John the Baptist stated before he baptised Jesus, that He was 'the lamb
of God, Who takes away the sins of the world'. John 1 : 29

The Old Testament teaches that humans cannot be perfected by obeying a
system of laws. The temple sacrifes foreshadowed Jesus Christ as John
the Baptist knew.
The New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ, God's only Son, gives
Eternal Life as we believe in Him.

What Mohammed did was to form a religion on rules and laws and by doing
that he was in opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
It is quite evident that the leaders of the Islamic faith have been
indoctrinated to oppose the Christian faith.

<snip>
>
> > The Koran has about 75% of Old Testament quotes and about 7% of New
> > Testament quotes.
>
> You've read the Koran?

I have quoted from a website article on Mohammed.
I have read parts of the Koran. There was no love in them, only hatred
for Jews and Christians.
I made a print out from a CD Rom, 4000 Classic Works of Literature.

All cultures and religions use indoctrinations. Those who are in
leadership positions are there because they have accepted the
indoctrinations of their training.

As Joshua said to the children of israel, "Choose you this day whom you
will serve"
Joshua 24 : 15. Theo, you have that choice. My prayer for you is that,
as you read the Koran, you will turn from it and come to an acceptance
of Jesus Christ as your Saviour.
Gladys Swager
Bang Adil
2006-03-15 21:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Tell us then why is it that men and women cannot pray together side by
side when sitting in a mosque? The women are usually way in the back
hidden from the men! Why can't they pray side by side, men and women,
or how about the women sitting in the front and the men way in the
back?
Riglin
2006-03-16 05:09:06 UTC
Permalink
"Bang Adil" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Tell us then why is it that men and women cannot pray together side by
> side when sitting in a mosque? The women are usually way in the back
> hidden from the men! Why can't they pray side by side, men and women,
> or how about the women sitting in the front and the men way in the
> back?
>

I think the reason is that someone once said most women go to hell.
Pan
2006-03-16 07:06:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:09:06 +0800, "Riglin" <***@quanyin.com>
wrote:

>
>"Bang Adil" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:***@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Tell us then why is it that men and women cannot pray together side by
>> side when sitting in a mosque? The women are usually way in the back
>> hidden from the men! Why can't they pray side by side, men and women,
>> or how about the women sitting in the front and the men way in the
>> back?
>>
>
>I think the reason is that someone once said most women go to hell.

And most men don't? Who said that?

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Bang Adil
2006-03-16 07:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Pan wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:09:06 +0800, "Riglin" <***@quanyin.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bang Adil" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:***@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> Tell us then why is it that men and women cannot pray together side by
> >> side when sitting in a mosque? The women are usually way in the back
> >> hidden from the men! Why can't they pray side by side, men and women,
> >> or how about the women sitting in the front and the men way in the
> >> back?
> >>
> >
> >I think the reason is that someone once said most women go to hell.
>
> And most men don't? Who said that?

The same someone who once said that most women go to hell.

>
> Michael
>
> If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Riglin
2006-03-16 09:01:41 UTC
Permalink
"Bang Adil" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:***@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pan wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:09:06 +0800, "Riglin" <***@quanyin.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bang Adil" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:***@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Tell us then why is it that men and women cannot pray together side by
>> >> side when sitting in a mosque? The women are usually way in the back
>> >> hidden from the men! Why can't they pray side by side, men and women,
>> >> or how about the women sitting in the front and the men way in the
>> >> back?
>> >>
>> >
>> >I think the reason is that someone once said most women go to hell.
>>
>> And most men don't? Who said that?
>
> The same someone who once said that most women go to hell.
>
LOL

That's also why there is no mention that women are getting the same rewards
the men are getting in heaven.

>>
>> Michael
>>
>> If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the
>> NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
>
topo
2006-03-16 16:15:12 UTC
Permalink
i heard that there is mosque in tucson, arizona that hold the prayers
with women and men praying side by side. this is a mosque of liberal
muslim movement whose leader was murdered by the sunni clerics who
hated him for his liberal teaching. he was sort of martin luther who
was rebelling from strict catholic churches.
the guy who narrated the hadith that says most women go to heaven was
abu huraira. he loved cats but hated dogs and women. maybe he was
extremely sexist, or gay? :-D
the hadiths that he narrated always praised cats and condemned dogs and
women. that is why muslims think dogs are dirtier than cats, which is
very ridiculous.
topo
2006-03-16 17:12:01 UTC
Permalink
oops, got some typo, *most women go to hell :-B
maybe i can say something sexist here, most men go to hell? :-D there
might be 72 sexy female devils there :-P
Pan
2006-03-20 03:07:05 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Mar 2006 08:15:12 -0800, "topo" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>i heard that there is mosque in tucson, arizona that hold the prayers
>with women and men praying side by side. this is a mosque of liberal
>muslim movement whose leader was murdered by the sunni clerics who
>hated him for his liberal teaching. he was sort of martin luther who
>was rebelling from strict catholic churches.
>the guy who narrated the hadith that says most women go to heaven was
>abu huraira. he loved cats but hated dogs and women. maybe he was
>extremely sexist, or gay? :-D
>the hadiths that he narrated always praised cats and condemned dogs and
>women. that is why muslims think dogs are dirtier than cats, which is
>very ridiculous.

Not to be flip, but don't you think cats keep themselves cleaner than
dogs do?

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2006-03-20 03:06:00 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Mar 2006 23:16:08 -0800, "Bang Adil" <***@aol.com> wrote:

>
>Pan wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:09:06 +0800, "Riglin" <***@quanyin.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bang Adil" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:***@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Tell us then why is it that men and women cannot pray together side by
>> >> side when sitting in a mosque? The women are usually way in the back
>> >> hidden from the men! Why can't they pray side by side, men and women,
>> >> or how about the women sitting in the front and the men way in the
>> >> back?
>> >>
>> >
>> >I think the reason is that someone once said most women go to hell.
>>
>> And most men don't? Who said that?
>
>The same someone who once said that most women go to hell.

Are you going to give a substantive answer to my question?

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
fairplay
2006-03-20 03:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Pan wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2006 23:16:08 -0800, "Bang Adil" <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Pan wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:09:06 +0800, "Riglin" <***@quanyin.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Bang Adil" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:***@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Tell us then why is it that men and women cannot pray together side by
>>>>>side when sitting in a mosque? The women are usually way in the back
>>>>>hidden from the men! Why can't they pray side by side, men and women,
>>>>>or how about the women sitting in the front and the men way in the
>>>>>back?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think the reason is that someone once said most women go to hell.
>>>
>>>And most men don't? Who said that?
>>
>>The same someone who once said that most women go to hell.
>
>
> Are you going to give a substantive answer to my question?
>
> Michael
>
> If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.


Maybe he had read this:

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/women.html

or this:

http://humanists.net/alisina/

you comments...... please
watcher
2006-03-20 09:02:04 UTC
Permalink
The whole page at http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/women.html
and http://humanists.net/alisina/ was filled by a great
hostility. Those people who wrote the page in the site was totally
stupid about Islam and their understanding.

There many verses in Qur'an that said man and woman are equal in front
of shari'ah..but when moslems perform shalat (pray) a leader must be a
moslem not moslemah...why because it's a natural that men take control,
that a man could become leader, and it's a nature too that women need
to lead. Can you imagine if you got a pray and a woman stands before or
beside you? I believe that if you were really a man, you could'nt stay
for a long time, you'll soon get bothered by her presence.
Moslems believe that Allah the only God had gave human being the right
rule to do,neither the free thinker though.
Those free thinkers just say something that came out of their
mind..it's doesn't a matter as long as they're not insane.
Leo
2006-03-20 09:40:49 UTC
Permalink
"watcher" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> The whole page at http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/women.html
> and http://humanists.net/alisina/ was filled by a great
> hostility. Those people who wrote the page in the site was totally
> stupid about Islam and their understanding.
>
> There many verses in Qur'an that said man and woman are equal in front
> of shari'ah..but when moslems perform shalat (pray) a leader must be a
> moslem not moslemah...why because it's a natural that men take control,
> that a man could become leader, and it's a nature too that women need
> to lead. Can you imagine if you got a pray and a woman stands before or
> beside you? I believe that if you were really a man, you could'nt stay
> for a long time, you'll soon get bothered by her presence.

You get bother because she is a woman?
This is very interesting. Can you explain why?


> Moslems believe that Allah the only God had gave human being the right
> rule to do,neither the free thinker though.
> Those free thinkers just say something that came out of their
> mind..it's doesn't a matter as long as they're not insane.
>
Rifty
2006-03-23 21:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Leo <***@tm.net.my> wrote:

> > Can you imagine if you got a pray and a woman stands before or
> > beside you? I believe that if you were really a man, you could'nt stay
> > for a long time, you'll soon get bothered by her presence.
>
> You get bother because she is a woman?
> This is very interesting. Can you explain why?

Obviously he has no self control. Even though the woman is modestly
covered as required by Islam, he can't even be near her without sinful
thoughts, apparently. Therefore she is required to stay away from him
because of his own lack of self-discipline.

It's amazing how some people impose their own failings on others in ways
that restrict their freedoms.

Rifty
--
Academic and Computing Help
http://rifty.net
Pan
2006-03-21 09:12:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:24:11 -0600, fairplay <***@hiwaay.net>
wrote:

>Maybe he had read this:
>
>http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/women.html
>
>or this:
>
>http://humanists.net/alisina/
>
>you comments...... please

I rather agree with watcher that these sites are really strongly
anti-Muslim.

Actually, someone else answered my question. It was a particular man's
Hadiths (I forget who, exactly) that most women would go to Hell.

As far as watcher's other point - that "There many verses in Qur'an
that said man and woman are equal in front of shari'ah" - if that's
the case, those verses are presumably being violated in practice
throughout the Muslim world, as women's testimony in court is given
only half the weight of men's testimony, and it is virtually
impossible to find a man guilty of rape under shari'ah, but the woman
who accuses a man of rape is ipso facto considered to have confessed
the capital crime of zina.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pastor Steve Winter
2006-03-21 16:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Pan <***@musician.org> spake thusly and wrote:

>I rather agree with watcher that these sites are really strongly
>anti-Muslim.

Try http://www.islamics.biz

Pastor Winter
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
watcher
2006-03-22 01:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire...evangelists of western countries
try to make the whole world to embrace christian..and as we see they'd
succeed. But in certain country and regions.
They'd succeed to make those people being christ at country or region
which is Islam was'nt taking presence...they failed to make more moslem
leaving their religion and accept christian, and this situation up
until now.
On the countrary...everyday there are many people all around the world
come to mosque and embrace Islam as hir/her religion, so what wrong
with this relgion..? there's no wrong if you study it carefully, fully
open minded, open your heart..and listen to your deep consciousness..I
believe you'll find the truth.
ini si þíLL™
2006-03-22 16:51:01 UTC
Permalink
"watcher" <***@gmail.com> wrote in news:1142990745.808241.182650
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com :


> On the countrary...everyday there are many people all around the world
> come to mosque and embrace Islam as hir/her religion, so what wrong
> with this relgion..? there's no wrong if you study it carefully, fully
> open minded, open your heart..and listen to your deep consciousness..I
> believe you'll find the truth.
>

what a BS !

mana statistiknya, mana datanya

ente jangan hanya asbun !

--
ini si þíLL™
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-22 20:08:15 UTC
Permalink
watcher wrote:
> Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire..

After the death of Mohammed, there were military campaigns to spread
his religious ideas through North Africa into Spain, southern European
states and into India.

The counter movement came from Europe in the form of Crusades,
especially with the aim to reclaim Jerusalem where Jesus Christ had
died on the cross, was resurrected and ascended into heaven. It was a
city that Christians held to be holy in their faith.

That movement has to be seen in the context of those years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

The teachings of Jesus Christ are 'to love your enemies, do good to
those who despitefully use you'.

The history of the world would have been entirely different if all
peoples had embraced and observed His teachings and accepted Him as
their Saviour which He had come into the world to be. It could be
different now if everyone accepted those teachings.
Gladys Swager
<snip>
Pan
2006-03-24 05:48:42 UTC
Permalink
On 22 Mar 2006 12:08:15 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
<***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>
>watcher wrote:
>> Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire..
>
>After the death of Mohammed, there were military campaigns to spread
>his religious ideas through North Africa into Spain, southern European
>states and into India.
>
>The counter movement came from Europe in the form of Crusades,
>especially with the aim to reclaim Jerusalem where Jesus Christ had
>died on the cross, was resurrected and ascended into heaven. It was a
>city that Christians held to be holy in their faith.
>
>That movement has to be seen in the context of those years.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
>
>The teachings of Jesus Christ are 'to love your enemies, do good to
>those who despitefully use you'.
>
>The history of the world would have been entirely different if all
>peoples had embraced and observed His teachings and accepted Him as
>their Saviour which He had come into the world to be. It could be
>different now if everyone accepted those teachings.
>Gladys Swager
><snip>

The World would also be different if Christianity had died out. Look
into the mirror. The first act of the Crusaders was to murder tens of
thousands of German Jews. The Crusaders did not love their enemies.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Ken Smith
2006-03-22 23:40:55 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:


>watcher wrote:
>> Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire..

>After the death of Mohammed, there were military campaigns to spread
>his religious ideas through North Africa into Spain, southern European
>states and into India.

>The counter movement came from Europe in the form of Crusades,
>especially with the aim to reclaim Jerusalem where Jesus Christ had
>died on the cross, was resurrected and ascended into heaven. It was a
>city that Christians held to be holy in their faith.

>That movement has to be seen in the context of those years.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

>The teachings of Jesus Christ are 'to love your enemies, do good to
>those who despitefully use you'.

The main point of the present debate about the Crusades is that those
who fought under the banner of the Cross definitely did not follow the
teaching about "love your enemies".
The phrase "collateral damage" hadn't been invented by then, or the
vast numbers of innocent women and children killed would have been
referred to as a bit of "collateral damage" associated with the
journey to the Holy Land to liberate it.

A bit like the phrase which came out of Vietnam: "We had to destroy
the village to save it"

>The history of the world would have been entirely different if all
>peoples had embraced and observed His teachings and accepted Him as
>their Saviour which He had come into the world to be. It could be
>different now if everyone accepted those teachings.
>Gladys Swager
><snip>

Salaam
Ken Smith

--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`We must remember that one of the dangers to any society, especially since
the development of mass communications, is that it might become credulous.
The antidote to credulity is scepticism.' Hanbury Brown
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-23 21:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Ken Smith wrote:
> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
<snip>
>
> >The counter movement came from Europe in the form of Crusades,
> >especially with the aim to reclaim Jerusalem where Jesus Christ had
> >died on the cross, was resurrected and ascended into heaven. It was a
> >city that Christians held to be holy in their faith.
> >That movement has to be seen in the context of those years.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
> >The teachings of Jesus Christ are 'to love your enemies, do good to
> >those who despitefully use you'.
>
> The main point of the present debate about the Crusades is that those
> who fought under the banner of the Cross definitely did not follow the
> teaching about "love your enemies".

The point I made was that the reaction in Europe against the spread of
Islam throughout the Mediterranean area is understandable in the
context of those times.
The same could be said of the reactions in England when Hitler invaded
Poland In September 1939. At that time England and the British Empire,
of which Australia was a member declared war on Germany, with
authorities in England more fully aware of the consequences, knowing
the military might of Germany at that time. Could it have been said
that war was justifiable at that time?
In Australia that we were at war was announced on a Sunday evening. I
was close to eleven years of age at the time. I can now remember the
apprehension we all felt, but putting our trust in Almighty God we went
into a future that was very much different than what had been
anticipated in the previous years.

I can recall how Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Britain,
had stated "Peace in our time!" That is what is required now. There are
enough problems in the world at present.
Terrorist attacks at different places in the world only increase the
problems.

> The phrase "collateral damage" hadn't been invented by then, or the
> vast numbers of innocent women and children killed would have been
> referred to as a bit of "collateral damage" associated with the
> journey to the Holy Land to liberate it.
>
> A bit like the phrase which came out of Vietnam: "We had to destroy
> the village to save it"
>
The Vietnam War came about from my understandings
(1) because of corruption in the South Vietnamese Government - I do not
have information about the North Vietnmaese Government at that time
(2) because of the infiltration of the Vietcong fron the North into
South Vietnam
(3) consider, also, the attitudes of Communist China and Russia at that
time.

Again, situations in the past have to be evaluated in the context of
those times. Very often, through the media, we are given the opinions
of those supporting one side or the other, not an overall evaluation.

> >The history of the world would have been entirely different if all
> >peoples had embraced and observed His teachings and accepted Him as
> >their Saviour which He had come into the world to be. It could be
> >different now if everyone accepted those teachings.

> --<snip>

> `We must remember that one of the dangers to any society, especially since
> the development of mass communications, is that it might become credulous.
> The antidote to credulity is scepticism.' Hanbury Brown

Credulous - ready to believe things, especially without good reasons -
Macquarie Pocket Dictionary. Surely the solution is to have enough
reasons to enable the truth to be known and to guide our decision
making. That often requires more reading and research than we have time
to devote to it.

Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the TRUTH and the Life. No one comes
to the Father (God Almighty) except through Me." John 14 : 6
Certainly, we need more than just earthly knowledge to guide us in
today's world. We need Godly wisdom, but so often do not avail
ourselves of that through prayer.
Gladys Swager
Terry Russell
2006-03-23 21:47:11 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>> A bit like the phrase which came out of Vietnam: "We had to destroy
>> the village to save it"
>>
> The Vietnam War came about from my understandings
> (1) because of corruption in the South Vietnamese Government - I do not
> have information about the North Vietnmaese Government at that time
> (2) because of the infiltration of the Vietcong fron the North into
> South Vietnam
> (3) consider, also, the attitudes of Communist China and Russia at that
> time.
>

I understand in 1947 an appeal was made to the US for help, before there was
a North Vietnam.
The answer was silence.

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/vm02000_.html
Pan
2006-03-24 05:50:33 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Mar 2006 13:07:40 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
<***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>
>Ken Smith wrote:
>> "***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> >The counter movement came from Europe in the form of Crusades,
>> >especially with the aim to reclaim Jerusalem where Jesus Christ had
>> >died on the cross, was resurrected and ascended into heaven. It was a
>> >city that Christians held to be holy in their faith.
>> >That movement has to be seen in the context of those years.
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
>> >The teachings of Jesus Christ are 'to love your enemies, do good to
>> >those who despitefully use you'.
>>
>> The main point of the present debate about the Crusades is that those
>> who fought under the banner of the Cross definitely did not follow the
>> teaching about "love your enemies".
>
>The point I made was that the reaction in Europe against the spread of
>Islam throughout the Mediterranean area is understandable in the
>context of those times.
[snip]

Oh, really? Sure, I suppose mass murder is always "understandable" to
those who want to whitewash it. We Jews will never forgive the
Crusaders. It is too bad the Muslims didn't take over all of Europe;
that would have been much better, not only for Jews, but for all
Christians who dissented from the official Vatican line.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-25 00:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Pan wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2006 13:07:40 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
> <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
<snip>

> >The point I made was that the reaction in Europe against the spread of
> >Islam throughout the Mediterranean area is understandable in the
> >context of those times.
> [snip]
>
> Oh, really? Sure, I suppose mass murder is always "understandable" to
> those who want to whitewash it. We Jews will never forgive the
> Crusaders. It is too bad the Muslims didn't take over all of Europe;
> that would have been much better, not only for Jews, but for all
> Christians who dissented from the official Vatican line.

Pan, I am not in the business of 'whitewashing the past' as you put it.

The Crusades came about because of the Muslim invasions through North
Africa and into Spain and Southern Eastern Europe. If Mohammed hadn't
changed from a message of love - he had that from the New Testament of
the Bible - which he preached in Mecca and changed to a message of
violence which he developed in Medina then, it could be argued, that
his followers after his death may not have used violence to spread his
teachings to much of the known world of those days.
(It is a fact that, even today, in Muslim controlled countries those
who do not accept those teachings or move away from them are cruelly
treated and even killed.)

To say 'it would have been much better' for the Muslims to have taken
over all of Europe is foolishness,
After Mohammed the intellctual progress that had occurred under the
pre-Islamic Arabs declined.
It was in Europe and England that Universities were established and the
scientific progress moved to the West as Europe is sometimes called

The Jews have been badly and wrongly treated throughout the last almost
two thousand years.
The Jews did not kill Jesus Christ. Some of them consented to His
death.
It was the Romans who crucified Him, and later most of His first
disciples.
On that issue, if Christ's death and resureection had been a hoax, a
story made up by those disciples,
would they have continued it, even after one, two or three of their
number had been murdered??????????

It is sad that some Jews will not forgive those who cruelly treated
those of their peoples who were persecuted in the past. I am well aware
that it is not easy to forgive some people for their acts towards us.
But not forgiving means that hatred is held in the consciousness.
Nothing can be done to reverse the past. But we can do something to
reverse our hurts to those who hurt us, deliberately in some instances.


On the Cross Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive them. ie those who were
murdering Him when He had done good to so many, but earned the wrath of
those Pharisees - not all of them - who did not act by the highest
principles. If Jesus could forgive those who cruelly hurt Him, that is
an example for all of us.
His added statment 'for they know not what they do' is of great
importance. In killing Jesus - the perfect Man - they opened the way
for God to be able to provide the means for a restored relationship
with Him through faith - which is the message of the New Testament.

There are Jews who are coming to realise that Jesus Christ was/is the
Messiah that had been promised through the previous centuries.
I have wonderd why all Jews did not accept Jesus as their Messiah after
His resurrection and ascension into heaven. One reason, in God's plan,
may have been that they were to preserve the scriptures that Christians
call the Old Testament that otherwise may have been lost in time.
Gladys Swager
Pan
2006-03-27 04:19:40 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Mar 2006 16:15:00 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
<***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>
>Pan wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2006 13:07:40 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
>> <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>> >The point I made was that the reaction in Europe against the spread of
>> >Islam throughout the Mediterranean area is understandable in the
>> >context of those times.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Oh, really? Sure, I suppose mass murder is always "understandable" to
>> those who want to whitewash it. We Jews will never forgive the
>> Crusaders. It is too bad the Muslims didn't take over all of Europe;
>> that would have been much better, not only for Jews, but for all
>> Christians who dissented from the official Vatican line.
>
>Pan, I am not in the business of 'whitewashing the past' as you put it.
>
>The Crusades came about because of the Muslim invasions through North
>Africa and into Spain and Southern Eastern Europe.

But their first step was to mass murder Jews in Germany.

> If Mohammed hadn't
>changed from a message of love - he had that from the New Testament of
>the Bible - which he preached in Mecca and changed to a message of
>violence which he developed in Medina then, it could be argued, that
>his followers after his death may not have used violence to spread his
>teachings to much of the known world of those days.
>(It is a fact that, even today, in Muslim controlled countries those
>who do not accept those teachings or move away from them are cruelly
>treated and even killed.)

I'm not defending that.

>To say 'it would have been much better' for the Muslims to have taken
>over all of Europe is foolishness,
>After Mohammed the intellctual progress that had occurred under the
>pre-Islamic Arabs declined.

That's insane! Now, you're trying to rewrite history by excising the
glorious chapter on the advanced civilization of the Islamic
Caliphates!

>It was in Europe and England that Universities were established

Nope. Al Azhar was established before the University of Bologna!

> and the
>scientific progress moved to the West as Europe is sometimes called

Where did it move from? Unbelievable! You're trying to deny the
existence of scientific and mathematical innovation in the Arab world!
Tell us, what language does the word "algebra" come from? Good God!

>The Jews have been badly and wrongly treated throughout the last almost
>two thousand years.
>The Jews did not kill Jesus Christ. Some of them consented to His
>death.
>It was the Romans who crucified Him, and later most of His first
>disciples.
>On that issue, if Christ's death and resureection had been a hoax, a
>story made up by those disciples,

Yep. Or a vision, a hallucination, whatever. Who knows? You and I
weren't there.

>would they have continued it, even after one, two or three of their
>number had been murdered??????????

Sure. Religion is all about faith. You don't believe in non-Christian
religions that people have been willing to die for.


>It is sad that some Jews will not forgive those who cruelly treated
>those of their peoples who were persecuted in the past.

Why is that sad? The Jewish religion teaches us that people can
forgive only wrongs done to them. So, if someone hits me, I can choose
to forgive him. However, if someone kills me, I am dead and no longer
have the ability to forgive him. Therefore, it is up to God to decide
what to do about murderers.

> I am well aware
>that it is not easy to forgive some people for their acts towards us.

No, you're missing the point. It may be easy or difficult to forgive
people for their acts toward us, but it is not up to us to forgive
those who murdered others.

>But not forgiving means that hatred is held in the consciousness.

If I hate long-dead murderers, what then?

>Nothing can be done to reverse the past.

Exactly.

> But we can do something to
>reverse our hurts to those who hurt us, deliberately in some instances.

Yes, as long as we are still alive.

>On the Cross Jesus prayed, "Father, forgive them.
[snip]

Yes, "Forgive them, for they do not know what they do." But he was
still alive while uttering those words. Once he was dead, it would
have been presumptuous of others to forgive them, as far as Jewish
thought is concerned. Except for one thing: Did they know or have
reason to believe that Jesus had himself asked them to do that? I
think that it would be a really interesting topic of legal discussion
among experts on Jewish Law whether it would be proper to forgive a
murderer if the victim, while in the process of dying, had voluntarily
asked people to do so.

As for your statement of faith in Christ, I respect that. If only
Christians followed the words of Jesus more closely, the World would
be a much better place. Jesus was a great man.

[snip]
>There are Jews who are coming to realise that Jesus Christ was/is the
>Messiah
[snip]

He sure brought 1,000 years of peace, didn't he? There have been many
false messiahs. No sense in waiting for a first coming or a second
coming, just act with conscience, and the World can be improved. A
Messianic Age is probably too much to hope for, but we can start by
trying to at least lessen the worst abuses.

Meanwhile, a little honesty from you about the place of Islamic
civilization in history would be welcome.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-28 10:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Pan wrote:
> On 24 Mar 2006 16:15:00 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
> <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >After Mohammed the intellectual progress that had occurred under the
> >pre-Islamic Arabs declined.
>
> That's insane! Now, you're trying to rewrite history by excising the
> glorious chapter on the advanced civilization of the Islamic
> Caliphates!
>
I posted from a source, that I do not have a record of.
I am wondering about the flow of learning from west to east, east to
west among the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and the Arab countries. from
about 500 BC to about 500 AD.
The fact is that necessity is often the 'mother of inventions' and in
some areas of the ancient world there were more innovations that in
others.

<snip>

> Where did it move from? Unbelievable! You're trying to deny the
> existence of scientific and mathematical innovation in the Arab world!
> Tell us, what language does the word "algebra" come from?

>From memory, I believe that I did give credit, in general terms, to
achievements in the Arab world.
>
<snip>
>
(On the resurrection of Jesus Christ) > ....... Or a vision, a
hallucination, whatever. Who knows? You and I
> weren't there.

The resurrection (coming alive again after death) of Jesus Christ is
central to the Christian faith. There were so many who saw Him after
that happened.
>
<snip>.
>
I accept that there are many religions in the world. But the issue at
present is whether the Christian faith or Islam is the true faith.
>
I spoke to an Islamic person on the phone prior to the start of the
Gulf War. During the conversation he said that Jesus had predicted that
another would come whose shoelaces he was unworthy to unloose.
>From that he had the understanding that Jesus had predicted Mohammed
would be greater than he was.
I explained to him that it was not Jesus who had said those words but
it was John the Baptist speaking of Jesus.

I believe that those words were spoken of Jesus and that the Koran is
in error on that point.
But indoctrinations can be accepted. What is necessary today is that
the truth be determined.
[snip]
>
Gladys Swager
AntiSpam
2006-03-30 08:10:30 UTC
Permalink
>
> I believe that those words were spoken of ...............................

That is what religion is all about. It does not necessarily need to be true
or false. Just Faith.

In time to come, we will gain more knowledge and then be able to ascertin
what is or isn't true.

Until recent times, virgin birth was not possible but now it is possible and
being practised. So to observers in the past, virgin birth would be a
miracle as their limited knowledge did not offer any other explanation.

Many of the better magicians of today would be considered as being more
powerful than any of the prophets during biblical times.

As we learn, we uncover the truth and there will be no end to learning.
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-30 20:45:48 UTC
Permalink
AntiSpam wrote:
> >
> > I believe that those words were spoken of ...............................
>
.......Jesus, and the Koran is in error on that point. (Gladys Swager
in previous posting)

I would date the criticism of some Christians and aspects of
Christianity in Australia at about 1970 in the media, and possibly it
also happened elsewhere in the world at about the same time.

> That is what religion is all about. It does not necessarily need to be true
> or false. Just Faith.
>
All belief systems need to be re-evaluated. Religions can be true of
false. Scientific claims can be true or false. Testimony in a court of
law can be true or false.

> In time to come, we will gain more knowledge and then be able to ascertain
> what is or isn't true.
>
> Until recent times, virgin birth was not possible but now it is possible and
> being practised. So to observers in the past, virgin birth would be a
> miracle as their limited knowledge did not offer any other explanation.
>
I assume you are referring to invitro fertilization. That is entirely
different - human assisted fertilization (using both ovum and sperm) so
that a child will be born.
The virgin birth of Jesus occurred miraculously as God's spirit
overshadowed Mary, (who was not sinless in herself, but nevertheless, I
believe, had very high moral standards), so that Jesus Christ was born
as the only perfect, sin-free human.

> Many of the better magicians of today would be considered as being more
> powerful than any of the prophets during biblical times.
>
I have viewed television programmes which show how modern magicians do
their tricks -. their ingenuity is amazing.
But that does not mean that the prophets in Bible times preceded them
in dishonesty.

You are arguing from a premise. Dishonest (ie part of showbusiness)
now; dishonest (ie an attempt to gain control of others) then. That is
not a correct analogy.
The fact is that there was not the technology then to set up the
miracles that happened in the Biblical record.

As we learn, we uncover the truth and there will be no end to learning.

My experience is that as some have made advances in education, others
have taken advantage for themselves. The majority of people in NSW
would not know that advances in teaching techniques began in the
Infants' Departments in the late '50's - early '60's. It took up to 45
years before Tertiary level academics claimed they had the statistical
evidence of the benefits.

As has been said, "Necessity is the mother of Invention", but in some
instances it is variation on a theme. Older ways can be revived with a
more modern appearance to give the impression it is new found
knowledge.
Once bullying by children was managed through Sunday School teaching
to be kind to others as God, in Jesus Christ, has shown His kindness
to us.
For quite a number of years there has been an in-school course on
bullying.
As I have not seen the course content, I assume, that it is from a
secularist viewpoint to try to correct the increased misbehaviours that
came from the incorrect implementation of the no physical punishment
programme. .
Gladys Swager
Dave
2006-03-30 23:57:10 UTC
Permalink
***@ozemail.com.au wrote:

> I assume you are referring to invitro fertilization. That is entirely
> different - human assisted fertilization (using both ovum and sperm) so
> that a child will be born.

no actually scientists can clone

>> (who was not sinless in herself, but nevertheless, I
>> believe, had very high moral standards),

Isnt it a prime aspect of Christian faith that "no-one is righteous, no
not one". I think the whole point with Mary is that she was only human,
like the rest of us. High moral standards dont count with God because a
lie is the same as murder and all that. I cant remember where it says
that in the bible but the way I understand it high moral standards is a
farce!

> But that does not mean that the prophets in Bible times preceded them
> in dishonesty.

surely you can see that from a secular point of view (that is without
faith) that prophets and magicians are the same thing.

> You are arguing from a premise. Dishonest (ie part of showbusiness)
> now; dishonest (ie an attempt to gain control of others) then. That is
> not a correct analogy.

So who gives you the authority to decide what is a correct analogy and
what isnt. In other words, prove what the person is saying is not correct!

> The fact is that there was not the technology then to set up the
> miracles that happened in the Biblical record.

But may have, although extremely unlikely, happened naturally, without
God's intervention.


> As I have not seen the course content, I assume, that it is from a
> secularist viewpoint to try to correct the increased misbehaviours that
> came from the incorrect implementation of the no physical punishment
> programme. .

No actually although the program doesnt quote bible passages (and I
suspect that anything that doesnt quote bible passages from your point
of view is secular), it is quite obvious that there are themes used that
originate in TRUE Christian faith, that is respect for others and love
and grace.

Gladys, we are not living in the age where we even have to look at sin
anymore. We need to acknowledge that on the whole we are not good enough
for redemption by ourselves, and then accept God's grace and then show
it to the world. God no longer looks at our sin if we accept his grace.
So we shouldnt be going around judging others. Judging others is a very
good example of the whole "log in your eye" thing.
Theo Bekkers
2006-03-31 00:38:17 UTC
Permalink
***@ozemail.com.au wrote:

> As I have not seen the course content, I assume, that it is from a
> secularist viewpoint to try to correct the increased misbehaviours
> that came from the incorrect implementation of the no physical
> punishment programme. .

You still think schoolchildren should be beaten by their teachers?

Theo
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-31 10:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> ***@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > As I have not seen the course content, I assume, that it is from a
> > secularist viewpoint to try to correct the increased misbehaviours
> > that came from the incorrect implementation of the no physical
> > punishment programme. .
>
> You still think schoolchildren should be beaten by their teachers?
>
Theo, I do not like the term 'beaten'.

I learnt in classes of over forty children in primary grades in what
was called 'talk and chalk education' - few books and other resources,
no carpet on the floor, feet had to be kept still so as not to disturb
other children, the cane was used sparingly by most teachers. But I
had a good education for that time. Despite missing most First Class
work I was, what is now called, a Selective High school student.

I was one of the first post-war trainee teachers. In the educational
psychology course we were told 'not to use corporal punishment on
children because it caused those on whom it was administered to grow up
to be immature.'
Let me ask you a question. If what was told us had shown to be so by
adequate testing why didn't the government of that time ban all
physical punishment from 1946.

Sometime in the 1950's, and I can't give an exact date - it may have
been during two country appointments I had in that period and was out
of touch with Sydney news - the physical punishment of Secondary girls
was banned. What happened? I was told, in the late 1960's that some
girls became insolent. Being kept in during breaks between lessons or
writing lines meant nothing to them.

I wrote the Minister for Education about 1976 that physical punishment
of children should be 'administered out of the system - not legislated
out.

In 1987 physical punishment of all children was banned. However, in
December, 2003 under the same Party in government a law was passed that
there 'was a limit to the physical punishment of children by parents.'
Was that because an election was due later in 2004? As a notice about
it was placed in a local school I assume that all schools in NSW had
such a notice.

I would think that there is little or no statistical evidence of the
adverse effects that were caused to children, teachers and parents
during the years from the late Forties to the early years of the new
century. I have some knowledge from my own experiences.
Gladys Swager
AntiSpam
2006-03-31 04:22:00 UTC
Permalink
> I assume you are referring to invitro fertilization. That is entirely
> different - human assisted fertilization (using both ovum and sperm) so
> that a child will be born.
> The virgin birth of Jesus occurred miraculously as God's spirit
> overshadowed Mary,

That belief is Faith. Scientifically, fertilisation occurred. Speculation
is that no copulation took place.(for virgin birth) .

If we humans have been the only civilisation on Earth originating from Adam
and Eve then perhaps artificial insemination might not have been possible
but evidence on Earth shows that perhaps the human race was preceded by
another civilisation.

Genetic studies will prove that humans today did not originate from one
couple. The many marks left on present day Earth which even current day
technology would not be able to emulate all point to something contrary to
what most religions would have us believe.

So, now that we know of the possibility of artificial insemination, could it
have been possible that a civilisation with such knowledge have been playing
GOD.

>
>> Many of the better magicians of today would be considered as being more
>> powerful than any of the prophets during biblical times.
>>
> I have viewed television programmes which show how modern magicians do
> their tricks -. their ingenuity is amazing.
> But that does not mean that the prophets in Bible times preceded them
> in dishonesty.

Again, could some other civilisation have been directing an emergent human
civilisation. It's much like teaching children simple magic tricks. Nothing
dishonest, just education.
Pan
2006-04-21 06:33:04 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:10:30 +0800, "AntiSpam" <***@streamnyx.com>
wrote:

[snip]
>Until recent times, virgin birth was not possible but now it is possible and
>being practised.
[snip]

It's always been physically possible to become pregnant with an intact
hymen, though the method I'm thinking of (ejaculating onto the vulva
without penetrating the vagina) would not be considered by Christians
or Muslims as a possible explanation for the conception of Jesus.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Pan
2006-04-21 06:30:54 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Mar 2006 02:06:28 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
<***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>
>Pan wrote:
>> On 24 Mar 2006 16:15:00 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
>> <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >After Mohammed the intellectual progress that had occurred under the
>> >pre-Islamic Arabs declined.
>>
>> That's insane! Now, you're trying to rewrite history by excising the
>> glorious chapter on the advanced civilization of the Islamic
>> Caliphates!
>>
>I posted from a source, that I do not have a record of.
[snip]

Time to do more research.

>(On the resurrection of Jesus Christ) > ....... Or a vision, a
>hallucination, whatever. Who knows? You and I
>> weren't there.
>
>The resurrection (coming alive again after death) of Jesus Christ is
>central to the Christian faith.

So?

> There were so many who saw Him after
>that happened.

You can find people who will testify to all kinds of visions. You to
your beliefs, and others to theirs.

><snip>.
>>
>I accept that there are many religions in the world. But the issue at
>present is whether the Christian faith or Islam is the true faith.
[snip]

That may be the issue for you; it surely isn't an issue for me. The
entire notion that there is one "true faith" is presumptuous nonsense
to me.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-23 00:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Pan wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006 02:06:28 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
> <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>
> >I accept that there are many religions in the world. But the issue at
> >present is whether the Christian faith or Islam is the true faith.
> [snip]
>
> That may be the issue for you; it surely isn't an issue for me. The
> entire notion that there is one "true faith" is presumptuous nonsense
> to me.
>
It may be 'presumptuous nonsense' to you as it has been to others.
However, there have been others who have moved from that 'presumptuous
nonsense' as they have examined the Christian faith more carefully.

A Ready Defense - Index

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/

Or in Search enter:- A Ready Defense - Josh McDowell
Gladys Swager

> Michael
>
> If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
Touche'
2006-04-24 00:48:03 UTC
Permalink
"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:***@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Pan wrote:
> > On 28 Mar 2006 02:06:28 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
> > <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >
> >
> > >I accept that there are many religions in the world. But the issue at
> > >present is whether the Christian faith or Islam is the true faith.
> > [snip]
> >
> > That may be the issue for you; it surely isn't an issue for me. The
> > entire notion that there is one "true faith" is presumptuous nonsense
> > to me.
> >
> It may be 'presumptuous nonsense' to you as it has been to others.
> However, there have been others who have moved from that 'presumptuous
> nonsense' as they have examined the Christian faith more carefully.
>

That statement can equally apply to others of other religions. So followers
of a faith will claim that their faith is the true faith and others are all
false. That being the case, the notion of one true faith lies in shambles.
Pan
2006-04-24 06:07:02 UTC
Permalink
On 22 Apr 2006 17:04:20 -0700, "***@ozemail.com.au"
<***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>
>Pan wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2006 02:06:28 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
>> <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>>
>> >I accept that there are many religions in the world. But the issue at
>> >present is whether the Christian faith or Islam is the true faith.
>> [snip]
>>
>> That may be the issue for you; it surely isn't an issue for me. The
>> entire notion that there is one "true faith" is presumptuous nonsense
>> to me.
>>
>It may be 'presumptuous nonsense' to you as it has been to others.
>However, there have been others who have moved from that 'presumptuous
>nonsense' as they have examined the Christian faith more carefully.
[snip]

Take your proselytizing elsewhere. I know plenty about Christianity.
Faith is just that: Faith, not logic. You have yours, others have
theirs. Just try to follow Jesus in your own life and you will be able
to make the world a better place.

Michael

If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-04-24 22:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Pan wrote:

<snip>

> Take your proselytizing elsewhere. I know plenty about Christianity.
> Faith is just that: Faith, not logic. You have yours, others have
> theirs. Just try to follow Jesus in your own life and you will be able
> to make the world a better place.
>
<snip>

Pan, I have checked your profile and can now understand your postings.
We all gain information from the environments in which we live.
As we grow older we either accept that information or reject it,
depending on other information which we acquire.

Logic (From Macquarie Pocket Dictionary)
1. the science which carefully examines the principles governing
correct or reliable reasoning
2. reasoning or arguing or an instance of it
3. a system or principles of reasoning related to any branch of
knowledge or study
4. reasons or sound sense
5. persuading force

>From the above definitions I would conclude that a faith (belief
system) to be logical must be subject to
correct principles (explanations) as far as human
reasonings/understandings are concerned.

Jesus Christ told His followers, those who believed in Him, His life
and His teachings that they were to go into all the world to tell
others of His gospel - the good news -
that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
No one comes to the Father (God Almighty) except through Him. John 14
: 6

That, in itself, is an amazing statement. Did He have the authority to
say that?

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God's Son through the Virgin
birth. The Holy Spirit came upon Mary so that she conceived. She gave
Jesus - the Word of the Triune God, His human body.
I find it hard to explain the Triune God. The best way I can is to say
that God Almighty shows Himself in three aspects - the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit - three activities of the Godhead.

John 1
verse 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and
the Word was God.
verse 3 Through Him all things were made that were made, without Him
nothing was made that has
has been made.
verse 14 The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have
seen His glory,
the glory of the One and Only, Who came from the
Father, full of grace and truth.

John, a disciple of Jesus, together with two other disciples, Peter and
James, saw Jesus transfigured
(his face shone, and his clothes became as white as the light) as Moses
and Elijah talked with Him.
Then a bright cloud enveloped them and a voice from the cloud said,
"This is My Son whom I love. Listen to Him."

John lived longer than all the others of the disciples of Jesus. He
would have been able to confirm the events of the three years of Jesus'
ministry, His death and His resurrection.

I became interested in the differences between the Islamic faith and
Christianity when I was doing a course in Ceramics and was given an
assignment on ceramics in parts of the world and having the time read
into ceramics of most countries including the Middle eastern countries.

>From one text that contained historical aspects I learnt that Mohammed
was of the opinion that Christians worshipped three Gods, God the
Father, Jesus, God the Son and Mary the mother of God. But that was a
misunderstanding, as I tried to explain above.

Jesus is perfect as God is perfect. Christians are human and are not
always as close to perfection as we might be.
In the Christian faith we are saved through faith. It is the unmerited
favour of God towards us.
Salvation is God's gift to us.
Gladys Swager
Touche'
2006-04-22 01:10:52 UTC
Permalink
"Pan" <***@musician.org> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On 28 Mar 2006 02:06:28 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
> <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >Pan wrote:
> >> On 24 Mar 2006 16:15:00 -0800, "***@ozemail.com.au"
> >> <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >After Mohammed the intellectual progress that had occurred under the
> >> >pre-Islamic Arabs declined.
> >>
> >> That's insane! Now, you're trying to rewrite history by excising the
> >> glorious chapter on the advanced civilization of the Islamic
> >> Caliphates!
> >>
> >I posted from a source, that I do not have a record of.
> [snip]
>
> Time to do more research.
>
> >(On the resurrection of Jesus Christ) > ....... Or a vision, a
> >hallucination, whatever. Who knows? You and I
> >> weren't there.
> >
> >The resurrection (coming alive again after death) of Jesus Christ is
> >central to the Christian faith.
>
> So?
>
> > There were so many who saw Him after
> >that happened.
>
> You can find people who will testify to all kinds of visions. You to
> your beliefs, and others to theirs.
>
> ><snip>.
> >>
> >I accept that there are many religions in the world. But the issue at
> >present is whether the Christian faith or Islam is the true faith.
> [snip]
>
> That may be the issue for you; it surely isn't an issue for me. The
> entire notion that there is one "true faith" is presumptuous nonsense
> to me.
>

The notion of God Almighty (whichever religion) is total nonsense to me.
Ken Smith
2006-03-27 23:50:12 UTC
Permalink
"Terry Russell" <***@RoEpMtOuVsEnet.com.au> writes:


>"***@ozemail.com.au" <***@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:***@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>>> A bit like the phrase which came out of Vietnam: "We had to destroy
>>> the village to save it"
>>>
>> The Vietnam War came about from my understandings
>> (1) because of corruption in the South Vietnamese Government - I do not
>> have information about the North Vietnmaese Government at that time
>> (2) because of the infiltration of the Vietcong fron the North into
>> South Vietnam
>> (3) consider, also, the attitudes of Communist China and Russia at that
>> time.
>>

History tends to be forgotten.
In 1954 the French - who came back to Vietnam in 1945 after the
Japanese were defeated - suffered a massive defeat at Dien Bien Phu.
They were opposed by the same person who had been fighting to get them
out in the 1930s - Ho Chi Min.

Talks were held in Geneva about the future, and it was decided that
the people of Vietnam would vote by September 1956 about whether they
wanted to be united or not - with a temporary demarkation line between
the North and the South.
Aided and abetted by USA, the President of South Vietnam decided not
to proceed with this - he was very well aware that Ho Chi Min, who had
been fighting the occupying powers for decades, had a very big
following.
And the rest if history, as they say.


>I understand in 1947 an appeal was made to the US for help, before there was
>a North Vietnam.
>The answer was silence.

>http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/vm02000_.html



--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`We must remember that one of the dangers to any society, especially since
the development of mass communications, is that it might become credulous.
The antidote to credulity is scepticism.' Hanbury Brown
nur abraham
2006-03-28 02:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Have you been to Mekah. You will see that Man and women pray side by
site, But to make it proper
the arrangement so the man will be infront follow by children and then
women. THere are places where certain
section is provided for the women. If the masjid is double story the
women normally on the top floor. What is important in the eye of Allah
is who is more pious and not who is infront or at the back during
prayer. However for man those who pray in the fist saff is better than
the second and for women those who pray in the last saff is better than
those who pray infront.

You have to understand the fundamental concept of Islam. "Prevention is
better than cure" Why worrry women that goes to prayer. You should
worry and peity the women who goes disco and Hard rock cafe. They are
drunk or being drugged and being rapes. Why not worry thousand of
women being prostitute. Why not worry hundred of infant being killed
and thrown in the rubbish bin,Why not worry thousand of children not
who are their father because their mother are victim of rape by YOU AND
THE SINNERS..
swa@ozemail.com.au
2006-03-28 09:00:16 UTC
Permalink
nur abraham wrote:

<snip>

> You have to understand the fundamental concept of Islam. "Prevention is
> better than cure"

In most, if not all, ethnic groups 'prevention is better than cure'
where that motto can be followed.

> Why worrry about women who go to prayer. You should
> worry and pity the women who go to discos and Hard rock cafes. They are
> drunk or being drugged and being raped.

Some can be. I doubt if there are reliable statistics about the
incidence of such occurrences.

> Why not worry about the thousands of women who are prostitutes.

There are people who are very concerned about the problem.

>Why not worry about hundreds of infants being killed and thrown in the rubbish bin.

Clinical abortions have been an issue since the 1970s and seen to be
preferable to 'backyeard abortions'.
The ethical issue in this is that pregnancies are not started unless
there is a committment to follow through to full-term - that it is
right for the woman, the child and the society.

Why not worry about the thousands of children whose mothers are victims
of rape.
<snip>.

In traditional Islamic families women are seen to be the procreators
and the more children they have increases the Islamic populations when
the children are indoctrinated to be Islamic from their earliest years.

Have Islamic men considered that there are many children in some
parts of the world who do not have enough food, clothing and shelter.
Would Islamic men and women ( and of many other ideologies) be prepared
to limit their families so these other children could have a better
future?
Gladys Swager
Polar Bear
2006-03-17 23:42:00 UTC
Permalink
If these women are not Muslims, they won't have this problem?

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:39:12 -0800, "K James" <***@nospam.com> wrote:

>Women as second class is another myth about Islam
>February 23, 2006
>
>
>We must disentangle culture and religion when discussing the treatment of women, writes Nadia Jamal.
>A READER once wrote to this newspaper claiming that "most Muslims are extreme misogynists, treating their women as
>chattels and considering them as being of less value than their favourite camel".
>Camel? Who is he calling a camel?
>
>Not only was his claim nonsense, but it was highly offensive to Muslim women and the Muslim men who care about them.
>
>Nevertheless, examples abound about why some people think that Muslim men treat women badly.
>
>One is the well-publicised antisocial behaviour of some young men of Muslim faith. Another is that no woman had been
>invited to an upcoming imams meeting, according to Aziza Abdel-Halim, of the Muslim Women's National Network.
>
>The meeting, organised by the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, is bringing together Muslim religious leaders
>from around the country. One of the primary objectives is to establish a national register of imams, which will affect
>women's lives as much as it does men's.
>
>Following Abdel-Halim's criticism, the federation this week said women would be invited to next month's gathering as
>delegates, but it could not say who would be on the list because no invitations had gone out yet.
>
>The Prime Minister, John Howard, has expressed concern about Muslim attitudes to women, while the NSW Police Minister,
>Carl Scully, has said that some men of Middle Eastern background hold "quite disgusting" views towards women.
>
>All of this helps fuel the argument that Islam treats women as second-class citizens.
>
>It is not necessarily so now, any more than 1400 years ago, when Islam gave women rights that were unprecedented
>throughout the world.
>
>Muslim women had spiritual equality, the right to an independent legal personality, the right to own property, the right
>to choose their own husband and the right to seek a divorce.
>
>In a recent speech that considered the historical position of women, a Sydney Muslim scholar, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammad,
>said the prophet Muhammad's message elevated women to a position where "she was granted her natural rights as a human
>being".
>
>This message came to societies, he said, that had previously taken pride in the birth of males and felt ashamed when a
>female was born. Islam changed this.
>
>Islam teaches that mothers must be honoured and treated with kindness and respect, he continued, that Allah (or God)
>will regard with favour the men who treat their wives gently and well, and that raising a daughter is one means of
>earning the grace of Allah and entry to heaven.
>
>
>these sentiments, however, have not translated into the lives of many Muslim women, particularly in the home. Some
>Muslims are still disappointed if they do not have a son.
>
>So who is to blame for the misconceptions about women in Islam today, and for the unsatisfactory reality? To say it is
>the fault of men or the media is tempting, but simplistic. Islam is not the problem. People have made it the problem.
>
>As a religion, Islam promotes education and has never denied women the right to learn. In fact, the first word revealed
>in the Koran is iqra (or read). This message is for all Muslims, regardless of gender and age.
>
>But cultural practices are often confused as or mistaken for religious teachings. While there is no denying that the two
>are intertwined, it is only through better education that the distinction between them can be better understood.
>
>Many of the problems facing women in the Muslim community, such as a man's role in the home, are the same as those in
>other communities.
>
>And there is aggressive male culture in many spheres. Just yesterday the High Court judge Michael Kirby said such an
>environment was keeping women out of the legal profession. This is not to say that the problem should not be tackled in
>communities where it exists, only that it should also be recognised as not being unique to one group or setting.
>
>The charity group Bayt Al-Zakat, which translates as House of the Alms, recently held an awards ceremony in Sydney for
>high achieving HSC students of Muslim background. Many of the high-scoring students were girls, an exciting reality for
>Muslim women.
>
>I addressed the gathering, as an Australian woman of Islamic faith, and I told the young women that by being at the
>ceremony and receiving their awards, they were helping to break down some of the stereotypes.
>
>I also called on the men in the audience to help dispel some of the misconceptions.
>
>We need these young men's help to improve the position of women, so that women receive the respect and rights they not
>only expect in a democratic society, but which their God has revealed as inherent and eternal.
>
>Nadia Jamal is a Herald journalist.
>
>http://smh.com.au/news/opinion/women-as-second-class-is-another-myth-about-islam/2006/02/22/1140563858120.html?page=2
>
>
>
Loading...